I'd like to see Obama with 60 plus Senators, and take the House, before I'm willing to totally go there.

If nothing else, it'd be nice to see them freak out, with the ability to do the main thing, campaign reform, removing money from politics, taking corporations out of the loop in contributions, and destroying super PACS, and PACs. Then see if they actually do anything, or if they keep pushing the right-wing line, or the corporate line.

Even FDR had 66 Senators. It's hard to judge Obama completely, when he's had to practically water everything he's tried down with Republican ideas that have been shown to fail, and continue to fail, when we've not even managed to give him that!?

And remember, there is a large part of the media designed to discourage the Democratic base--and from what I see, it works quite well. I'm actually never sure whether posts like this aren't made by right-wingers, who're designed to try to instill hopelessness in us, in our party. I'll give you the benefit of doubt, since I feel the same dismay.

I'm just not willing to give up, until we actually achieve that majority, enough to pass any bill, and see what they do, or don't do.

There has been no change thus far, nothing has been done, today is Tax Day, we had to file as singles to please the sanctimony of the straights. Make real change, then pat your damn back, not the other way around.
Sick of it. We have no equality. Stop claiming victories you have not even won that are not your own and for which you do not pay the price of delay.

You mean like in 2009-2010?

but not 20 months (which would be two years minus four months).

He was replaced by a Republican. At that stage, Lieberman was an Independent (not a Democrat), and then Arlen Specter supposedly became a Democrat. It was a wild ride in 2009-10.


It is true, however, that we had sixty votes in the Senate for only a very short period of time during this period.

I am still ticked at Obama about a ton of stuff (stuff that had nothing to do with the numbers in Congress), but facts are facts. LBJ and FDR both had significant majorities in both houses of Congress when they actually passed some good, liberal legislation.

-Laelth

with a minority supporting him.

We shouldn't need a perfect setup to fight for what we care about.

A lot of Democrats supported a lot of things that Bush did (including the Patriot Act, tax cuts for the rich, and the Iraq War Resolution). The Democratic Party is not now, nor has it ever been, liberal, as a whole. Some liberals do, occasionally, hang out in the Democratic Party, but it would be absurd to suggest that all Democrats are liberals or that the Democratic Party, itself, is liberal. It is not.

On the other hand, the Republicans are pretty universally conservative (at least on the economic issues--the ones that matter to the 1%). They do lock-step (and goose-step) much better than we do, as history has shown.

-Laelth

He served until around February of the following year.

Both LBJ and FDR did have significant majorities, but they were not all like minded. There was probably more division then among Democrats than there is now between New Democrats and Republicans.


FDR did have the advantage of taking over when people were desperate and accepted almost anything that he tried to do. However, Obama had that same advantage in 2009. He just did not use it as well as FDR. FDR was the reason media even began looking at the first 100 days of a newly-elected President's administration.

Democrats did not have a fillibuster-proof majority for two years -- that's a lie, or at best, a myth.
January 20, 2009 - After suffering a seizure during Barack Obama's inaugural luncheon, Senator Kennedy’s health forced him to retreat to Massachusetts.

April 28, 2009 news outlets issued the following report: Republican Sen. Arlen Specter has switched parties, which would give Democrats a filibuster-proof 60 seats.

Despite the fact that the media hailed the party switch of Arlen Specter and claimed it gave Democrats a filibuster-proof Senate, the Minnesota seat still remained vacant. The Senate had 57 Democratic members and 2 Independents. Technically, the Senate was two members short, but I'm counting Senator Kennedy even though he was at home ill because he did cast a vote in June. That's 59.

May 15, 2009 Senator Robert Byrd was admitted to the hospital reducing the number of sitting Senators to 56 Democratic members and 2 Independents. So, 58.

July 7, 2009 Al Franken (D) was sworn in after the election dispute over the Minnesota seat was decided in his favor. Senator Kennedy continued to recuperate at his home in Massachusetts and was unable to cast any more votes; Senator Byrd was still in the hospital. The Senate had 56 sitting Democratic members and 2 Independents. Still 58.

July 21, 2009 Senator Byrd returned to the Senate making the count 59 seats. No Senator Kennedy.

Senator Kennedy died August 25, 2009.

The Kennedy seat was vacant from August 25 - September 24 when Paul G. Kirk was appointed to occupy his seat until the completion of a special election. The swearing-in of Kirk gave the Democrats a 60-seat majority.

Democrats had a 60 seat majority from September 24, 2009 thru February 4, 2010 when Republican Scott Brown got the Kirk/Kennedy seat. That's 4 months, not 2 years!!

This does not account for the number of days Congress was not even in session during that time. If one subtracts the number of days Congress was out, the time that President Obama had a Democratic majority in Congress is further reduced by more than 30 days, or another full month.

Of a possible 94 legislative days during that period, the Senate was only in session for 67 days, while the House only labored for 54.

In addition, Lieberman, Nelson, Landreau, and Lincoln may have caucused with the Democrats but they voted with the Republicans.

on a given day when he was absent. Same for all the others.

By the way, you are mistaken that Kennedy simply retreat to Massachusetts between the inauguration and his death. He did fly in for a couple of important votes and he also worked in D.C. on his own version of the health care bill. And, though I cannot swear to this, I seem to recall they allowed him to vote by phone or proxy a couple of times as well, but, again, that is only a vague recollection.

Lieberman, though an indie, was still in the Democratic caucus, like Sanford. Contrary to popular belief and legend, Lieberman, Nelson, Landrieu and Lincoln did not always vote against their own caucus. And, if they did, whose fault was it? Democrats will defend an incumbent to the death (unless the incumbent is liberal).

But, regardless of the details, how hard did Obama fight for anything he supposedly wanted? And what was that is did fight for?

Obama himself described his policies as those of a moderate Republican from the 1980s. That would be epitomized by Reagan, whom Obama placed on his list of top 10 presidents in all of U.S. history. Obama was not fighting for liberal policies. Further, at times, such as the Obama tax cuts for the rich of 2010, and lack of a public option in Obamacare, he fought his own caucus.

Last edited Tue Apr 16, 2013, 02:26 AM - Edit history (1)

But the GOP got their way all the time.

Including not being investigated for starting two wars on a lie.

It is VERY weak sauce to let the dems off the hook just because they didn't have a complete lock on everything.

They don't fight for anything.

They don't tell the public what they care about and why.

..."Progressives" who will help him implement his agenda.
You get a Beat Down.
Not from the Republicans,
but from The WHITE HOUSE!!!.

Check Out the Arkansas Democratic Primary, 2010,
where the curtain was pulled aside:


The White House Rescues Blanche Lincoln's Failing Primary Campaign against a Pro-LABOR, Pro-Health care Democrat
(make sure you read the part about Lincoln having NO CHANCE in The General against the Republican)

He gives up everything right off the bat. Hell, he put the SS cuts into the budget because he knew that the Republicans wanted them. At least that's what he says. I think he wants them as well, don't really know why. But really, why wouldn't he make them ask for them?

The guy is a failure in so many ways. What a huge disappointment. He totally wasted the mandate he had and the momentum of the people's will/enthusiasm. We were so ready for so much "change" after the Bush years and we got squat. He could've had an FDR presidency but he won't fight. He would rather please his enemies than his supporters. I don't know WTF he is thinking, but he really blew it.

He caught for civil rights. He's the best we got

we need BETTER

"we need BETTER"

...Zombie Reagan: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022673836

... only a pro would do that and there's none of them here!

Who's better than that? Maybe you should sit down and really think and ponder what he HAS accomplished with this lousy filibustering congress. Is your glass always 1/2 empty?

every bit as much as Bush pulled Saddam out of his hidey hole.

Obama gave a very courageous decision to get Obama that night. If he failed... it would have meant the end of his administration. That took guts! The only decision that Bush took that required guts was to invade Iraq.

Give credit where credit was due!

perhaps YOU should take your own advice

If we deserve a majority Congress and President from one of those parties, I say go for it. Start working on that now.

Apparently they are angry at Obama for one thing and for that reason, will stay home or leave the party. It's a waste of time trying to convince them to stick with the Democrats. All of these arguments were made in 2010 and not one of these posters ever let up in the slightest. We have a better chance of winning if we try to convince the regular voters who don't normally pay attention.

No one would be upset with the President. Come on people get with it!

We need to get out of the "better than the other guy" nonsense. We don't need "better than" - we need the best damn candidate we can find - one who talks the talk and actually walks the walk. A strong history of advocacy for Democratic ideals and a history of working to enact those ideals would be a good starting place.

NO PROOF.

But thanks for playing!

.. both parties have moved so far to the right that a moderate/centrist is now a liberal - NOT.

As a guest on the Colbert show, he asked her (edited to disambiguate, I'm talking about Sotomayor here) what about herself would most surprise people. Her reply was that she is not a Democrat, and that she "believes in the constitution". Not the kind of surprises I like.

Also, each of Obama's appointments to the Supreme Court was arguably more conservative than the justices they replaced.

So this is not the best argument for Obama supporters to hang their hats on.

"Liberal issues" these days are limited to things like gun control, GLBT rights, pro-choice issues and the like, none of which gore the corporate ox.

With one hand Obama ostentatiously waves the gun control flag, while with the other he picks the pockets of his distracted followers.

And we need to seriously gore some corporate ox.

Obama's appointees are centrists- less liberal than the ones they replaced- who only seem liberal next to the fascists and corporate whores appointed by Bush.

His appointees are more pro-business than pro-people. Being better than the Republicans on social issues is great, but IMO our biggest problems these days are economic unfairness and inequality.

More details are here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/charles-weisselberg/elena-kagan-and-the-death_b_596447.html

I was unaware of Justice Kagan's role in further eroding Miranda.

-Laelth

Are for Monsanto, when that issue of GM foods gets brought into court.

Not surprising to find out they are sinister in other aspects as well.

He's the best put forward by our masters.

The system is rotten. We've got to break it, and make something better.

Or not...

There is a HUGE difference.

in Sotomayor's case. She told Colbert she is not a Democrat.

I've been where you're at, but there's no alternative. We stand a better chance influencing primaries than voting third party.

They said Hillary was inevitable last time and look how that worked out.

There is an alternative and I just said what it is in my OP. At least my conscience will be clear while the drones fly.

We have been disenfranchised. I did get a glimmer of hope today when I read Howard Dean's twitter. He said the same thing, using fewer words. Maybe as Independents we can actually push FDR Democracy.
IMO, 95% of our current federal politicians should be in their for profit prisons huddling with their banksters.

Do you think we would be having "grand bargains" if Democrats had majorities in both houses of Congress? Wake up people!

Right now they are just another branch of the corporations, just to a lesser extent that the Cons. They are playing "good cop" but they are serving the same master.

If the people stop supporting them and start a real, viable third party, then Dems will either move back left where they belong or get around 1/3 the vote. I honestly think a Populist Party can get the left and the indies. Stand for SS, medicare, single payer health care, no wars, no Patriot Act, no drones, etc... there's so much that can bring us together if we refuse to play this silly Dems vs. Cons game that is forced upon us.

So I/we women can't depend on you to protect our rights?
And your conscience is clear while SS is privatized . Could you sleep at night?
How'd you like to live in an Oligarchy? Instead of a clear conscience...you'd be riddled with guilt.

... narrowly capturing your state's electoral votes that proved to be the margin of victory?

I would vote Green in a heartbeat if we had instant runoff voting, but Florida 2000 was the tipping point in the decline of our once great country. How many Florida Democrats & Independents who voted for Nader would do so again, knowing the consequences?

Would there have been a difference between President Al Gore and President GW Bush?

Will there be a difference between D & R nominees in 2016??

If you answer NO to that last question, I don't think you're being honest with yourself. Just take a close look at the Republican Party of today.

They're barely center any more. They certainly are no where near left.

From the lowest office to the highest, we all need to work towards putting progressive candidates on the D ticket in the general election.

Enabling the election of R's by witholding our votes from D's is a dubious strategy for moving D's to the left, and much damage can be done by R's in office (especially the Oval Office) while hoping for the desired effect.

I'm not minimizing the need for dramatic change in our political system and in the people we elect to represent us, but I don't see another Florida 2000 as an effective strategy for achieving that goal.

The only way to accomplish this is start from the bottom up at the local lever. Which means getting off our asses and getting involved!!!

The problem is that The Party will not allow the primary process to play itself out. They interfere, supporting one primary candidate with their money and connections over another Democratic candidate. If a primary candidate is viewed as too liberal, they've been known to send in another, shall we say, more pliable candidate, to run against the progressive candidate. If there is any question about this, please see what they did to Howard Dean in 2004, it's a classic example, though they've pulled this stuff in several Congressional and Senate races as well.

As for Hillary, the Party Bosses didn't care who won: Hillary, Obama or Edwards -- they were all the same corporate-friendly candidate. They always hedge their bets and ensure there are at least 2 or 3 leading Third-Way candidates in the race while ACTIVELY marginalizing anyone left of center (see Kucinich).

The party will never budge until they understand they cannot continue to throw the Left under the bus. We're activists, we keep informed and we're willing to vote with our feet if given no other choice.

The corporate candidate getting backing from the dem party, rather than the liberal candidate. As we let more & more money in the process it becomes more & more corrupt. The primary argument doesn't resonate like it used to.

People like Reid and Kennedy knew better.

We have next to zero chance of influencing a primary. And, if something goes terribly wrong and the one who is not chosen by the Party wins a primary, the Party abandons him or her.

Liberals are no longer welcome in the Democratic Party and the Democratic Party is not a democracy.

It certainly feels that way to me on the national level.

Locally, however, it's a bit different. In my city, the party is packed with liberals.

-Laelth

As I said above, this applies only on the local level. My governor, both my U.S. Senators, and my Representative in the House, are all pustules--vile Republicans to the core. My Mayor, on the other hand, is a moderate. My State Rep. (James Beverly) and my State Senator (David Lucas) are both die-hard liberals, as are the people who represent me on the City Council (Tom Ellington, Henry Ficklin, and Charles Jones). I am blessed with good, liberal representation on the local level. As for the federal level, sorry. We suck.

-Laelth

Many post here, who don't self-identify as Democrats.

Which makes me wonder, why? Why would someone that doesn't self-identify as a Democrat post on a site named DemocraticUnderground?

Could it be that there just isn't a market for that progressive world that many insist is right around the corner?

What does that mean?

The Third Way is not grass-roots. It is corporate-bankrolled. It was not Democrats across the country who hijacked the party for corporate interests.

Psst. That's why people are so angry.

Corporate bank-rolling not withstanding, I think folks really need to operate in reality ... and that reality has it that the majority of the American electorate is no where near as progressive as we would have them.

Nor are they as conservative as the modern gop would have us.

you need to pay better attention to what America is telling you.

No, traditional Democrats are not too "fringe" for the electorate.

Every single poll this year showed that the electorate was far more on the page of traditional Democrats than the corporate candidates we were offered. Across party lines, voters favored protecting SS and Medicare and curbing military spending.

And the proof of the lie is that the candidates all pivot LEFTWARD every single election season to win voters. They lie and say that they will support a public option, or protect Social Security, because they know that is what voters want to hear. But as soon as the election is over, it's back to the business of the one percent.

That is what happens when corporations buy elections. And posts like the one you just made are what happens when corporations buy the media.

The point about candidates such as Obama running to the left shows that is how to win. To win, he claimed to oppose mandates, support the public option said he would never sign a bill without one, called chained cpi a cut he'd never seek, said he favored lifting the cap on FICA, and that he was not going to go after medical marijuana in States that have approved it. Why did he not run as a moderate centrist seeking chained cpi and bipartisan reform of insurance for profit, it that is what America wants? Did he say all those things just for shits and giggles? Because bullshitting makes him happy? Or did he do that to win votes he'd not win spouting moderate policy?

That is it exactly.

If a Dem ran on basically what is occurring now w/ the budget talks, they'd not make it through the primaries.

I guess the nature of post after post after post, is more telling than where they post?

... the premier, and certainly the most-visited, liberal discussion board for American politics.

It is what it is. Liberals claimed it first and have not yet let go of it (though many of us felt we were being pushed out in 2009-10).

-Laelth