I really tire of people saying they're not going to support Obama if they don't get their way.

I get it. You want a perfect liberal Utopian society. We all do. But taking your ball and going home if the healthcare plan isn't 100-percent to your liking completely undercuts everything you have worked for throughout your life.

Sure, you might not think it does. You might not believe it matters. You may see no difference between a Democrat in the White House and a Republican, but you and I both know that's just bullshit.

It's bullshit because eight years ago many on the left decided to sit out or vote Ralph Nader because Al Gore was not nearly as liberal as we would have liked. What did that get us?

There is not one person on DU who can honestly tell me Pres. Obama and Pres. Bush are even remotely alike in policy and the way they run this country. You can't tell me there would be no difference between another four years of the Obama administration and a new four years of Sarah Palin.

So why act as if it's good to throw everything away because maybe the public option isn't as good as you'd like?

Remember how much damage the last eight years did to this country. Do you think it could handle a Palin or a Romney or a Jindal?

I don't.

And if you're a true progressive, you'd do everything in your power to make sure no Republican sees the White House again.

Because we all know even a flawed Democrat is better than the most perfect Republican.

Obama may have his flaws, but there is no doubt I feel safer and more confident with him in the Oval Office than I ever did with Bush.

he didn't get it done all in one go. Some aspects of policy got added later.

The First New Deal (1933-34) was conservative and actually had a lot of business and GOP support. But in 1935, FDR took a turn down the Left Lane.

The complainers here aren't true progressives.

True progressives build up, they don't tear down.

That is all.

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

GET OUT OF MY INTERNET!

.... some behind Huckabee and some behind whomever the Mavericky McCain type is now.

United we stand eh?

and while they are doing the opposite..they are also fucking my constitution!

for anyone of any political stripe.

Whiney and wimpy when they should be loyal and steadfast.

Obama got handed a mess. How the HELL can he straighten it out with attacks from both sides and the middle? People need to grow up or grow a pair, whichever comes first.

resolute. stay the course. can't get fooled again...

You don't think you are, but you are.


And if you honestly can't see any difference between that and what we have now, then you're hopeless.

president palin will be a byproduct of a democratically controlled house, senate, and executive branch that can't act like they're in control. but feel free to trot out the ol' ghost of Ralph Nader if that's what makes you sleep better at night.

is absolutely essential. Didn't that become very clear in 2000? If you don't think it is, then you are foolong yourself, and putting the rest of us in jeopardy.

If you face a resolute enemy, you can't be whining and bickering with one another. The primary focus should be at all times on the enemy. And these enemies are not to be underestimated. They are broken and demoralized, but they have not given up. Todays Republicans are like the guy in the horror movie who will not die. They keep coming back to life. As long as there is a right wing, no matter how in shambles it may be, we need to remember who the real enemy is.

And it is NOT one another.

not calling out the opposition on their bullshit and obfuscation.

:)

But, I will never, ever again, vote for any candidate simply because they have a "D" after their name.

Did that for years thinking that at least they would be better than a Republican, but not anymore. I learned my lesson, in future I will not support any candidate just because they are a Democrat. They have to earn my vote.

:shrug:

gratification lie for too many years.

Many liberals in 2009 are so easily discouraged that they are willing to quit because we don't immedietly get our way.

The Civil Rights movement didn't start in the 50's or 60's it started with the Civil War...think about it? How long did it take to actually get laws passed for equal rights? If blacks had given up like many Liberals are willing to give up, then I wouldn't be on this site. I more than likely would not be going to Grad school and the list goes on....

Back to the Civil Rights movement, why do you think they turned the water hoses and the dogs on black protesters? It was to beat them down and discourage them.....the black marchers kept going back and marching non-violently. That backbone, that moxy forced the rest of the country to say enough is enough.

It has taken this country 30 years not 8 years to get into the terrible shape it is now, why would you think it's going to take only 7 months to clean it up and fix what is broken?


Do you think it's Obama's fault that we have a group of Blue Dogs that might as well be Repugs? Is it his fault that the MSM and the right wing are being fed billions of dollars to attack his agenda?

Do not get discouraged because the MSM is telling you to do so. Get fired up and work on replacing Dems that are not doing what we asked them do and replace them with progressive Dems.

are angry because they might not get "the healthcare plan isn't 100-percent to your liking,". I haven't seen that at all. What I've seen are people saying they've already been nudged far enough from their true 100% position of single-payer and feel that public option is the nudge line they won't be nudged over, and will instead push back.

I don't personally agree with that stance for myself. I'm waiting to see how the game plays out, what final bills look like, and what if anything Obama signs. But you're just painting with exaggerative colors here to say what you have about those that are highly concerned, well informed, and feel they have to hold the line for themselves and their fellow Americans.

And saying you won't vote or support Obama in 2012.

What the hell do we gain from that?

And in my most humble opinion, they shouldn't be judged for it any more harshly than those claiming they will not vote for the Blue Dogs if they don't pass a public option (which seems to be just fine with everyone). Clearly healthcare is very important to many people.

substitute for hard work-- just all some people can do when reality bites them in the ass.

It's a big country and a bigger world. If I get something close to my way half the time, I can live with that.

who can't even be bothered to pretend that they have the power to ram through their agenda. i'm really getting tired of milquetoast dems capitulating to republicans that have openly stated that they have no intention of ever supporting anything that this president or DEMOCRATICALLY controlled congress puts forth.

That's what people saying they're not voting for Obama in '12 are advocating.

and then calling them out as not being progressive when they express concern that progressive agendas aren't even getting a sniff, after which you make idle threats like "would you rather have palin or mccain in the white house," followed by shock and dismay when they say fuck this shit, i'm done.

..is idiotic.

There has been an incredible amount of progressive, YES PROGRESSIVE, progress in the past 7 months.


More than in the previous 8 years combined.



And you're willing to throw that promising start away because it is only 60% or 70% of what you'd want instead of 100%.


Yes... that makes you a whining baby. And your hissy-fit will result in getting an administration in 2012 that give you 0% of what you want.


Did you enjoy the Bush years? Did you get anything you wanted during that time? Anything at all?


And if you try to respond by saying that you've seen 0% Progressive progress in the past 7 months, then you're no better than the dining room table that Barney Frank won't argue with. You're not worth discussing things with.

60-70% you say? last i checked, we're still throwing money down that rathole in iraq. not only is a troop escalation happening in the 'stan, it looks like we'll be there for another DECADE, at least. gay peeps are still getting kicked out of the military. gas is back to over THREE-FUCKING-DOLLARS per gallon.

don't take for granted that all people who post here are democrats. yeah, i've voted a straight dem ticket through the last eight election cycles. how long do you expect people to accept the status quo however?! i realize that it's early in Obama's term, but a lot of progressives, myself included, are growing increasingly disillusioned. if they don't hammer this health care thing and get the FUCK out of the middle east tout de suite, you're going to see a lot of people staying home in november '12.

by all the progressive whiners.

Vanity voting should have permanently gone out of style after the 2000 election. The notion that hard-line reactionary government is more likely to eventually lead to true progressive outcomes than incrementalism of the sort we are seeing now is delusional.

What kind of progressive evolution did we get after eight years of Dumbass? All that did was leave us with a right-wing that is more intransigent than ever and even more people who have no concept or belief in the public interest.

Obama is trying to rebuild faith in government. Kill that baby at age four and replace it with another anti-government cabal and let's see where we end up.

I don't think that there has been a Democratic nominee for several years that would have been able to completely satisfy most of the people on this board it seems. To them, they would all probably be considered corporate sell outs, bipartisan-obsessed, warmongerers, anti-gay, etc. just like Obama has despite all of the evidence to the contrary.
Had Gore been inaugurated, they would've been picking on him whenever he took a more centrist/non-progressive position on an issue. Kerry probably wouldn't be progressive enough for them either. If Obama hadn't won the primaries and Hillary got the nomination and won the GE, people here would REALLY find fault with her for not being progressive enough.
Some people here will just never be satisfied with ANYBODY the slightest bit to the right of Kucinich, Feingold, et. al and will find SOMETHING to fault Obama and/or the Democratic party in general on.
This whole "take my ball and go home" mentality that I sadly see far too much of on this board is only going to make it that much easier for the Republicans to remain relevant and regain power while the rest of us are arguing vociferously about things like whether Rick Warren should be involved in Obama's inauguration or whether President Obama should sign a HCR if it doesn't include a Public Option even if it's an otherwise good bill and accomplishes the same goals.
Some of the people here think they're "owed" obedience and allegiance to their point of view on the issues as a condition of their support despite the fact that Obama might have differed with them on some of the issues and TOLD everybody what he believed during the campaign- if you were paying attention.
Given the hatred I've seen expressed here towards Obama during the past 2-3 months, I have to wonder why some of them are even bothering to remain members here when they don't see anything good or positive about Obama and/or talk of just giving up on the Democratic Party entirely if they don't do..... :eyes:

You don't seem to get it at all, and rely on a bunch of self-invented POVs for those with whom you disagree.

doesn't matter for shit if they don't act like dems when they get there. charlie weaver to block.

fuck. that. shit. anymore.

Really?

REALLY???



If so... then you have the perception of reality of an infant.

can we HOPE for something a little more than better than the previous eight years?!! c'mon!

You have the patience of a 3rd grader.


Unwinding 8 years of Bush/Cheney shit doesn't happen overnight.... and tangible progress has already been made.

We've made more progress in the past eight months than this country has made in the last 30 years.

The Republicans will have chosen a candidate and the impending horrors will seem more concrete.

Most of the "threats" to withhold votes are just a form of venting anyway.

right?

Social Security when it was first passed in the 1930s, under a "Progressive" President FDR, and a "Progressive" Democratic Congress. A Congress that was much more Progressive than what we currently have.

You know, Social Security. That great symbol of Progressive Democratic reform.

When Social Security was first passed, it wasn't anywhere near perfect, far from it. It only covered half the people back then, that it does now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_in_the_United_States#Creation:_The_Social_Security_Act

<snip>
Social Security was controversial when originally proposed, with one point of opposition being that it would cause a loss of jobs. However, proponents argued that there was in fact an advantage: it would encourage older workers to retire, thereby creating opportunities for younger people to find jobs, which would lower the unemployment rate. Historian Edward Berkowitz subsequently contended that the Act was a cause of the "Roosevelt Recession" in 1937 and 1938.

Most women and minorities were excluded from the benefits of unemployment insurance and old age pensions. Employment definitions reflected typical white male categories and patterns.<11> Job categories that were not covered by the act included workers in agricultural labor, domestic service, government employees, and many teachers, nurses, hospital employees, librarians, and social workers.<12> The act also denied coverage to individuals who worked intermittently.<13> These jobs were dominated by women and minorities. For example, women made up 90% of domestic labor in 1940 and two-thirds of all employed black women were in domestic service.<14> Exclusions exempted nearly half the working population.<13> Nearly two-thirds of all African Americans in the labor force, 70 to 80% in some areas in the South, and just over half of all women employed were not covered by Social Security.<15><16> At the time, the NAACP protested the Social Security Act, describing it as “a sieve with holes just big enough for the majority of Negroes to fall through.”<16>

Some have suggested that this discrimination resulted from the powerful position of Southern Democrats on two of the committees pivotal for the Act’s creation, the Senate Finance Committee and the House Ways and Means Committee
<snip>

* Minorities weren't covered.
Who cared about them in the 1930s? Blacks, Mexicans, and Asians were just second class citizens anyway, right? Why should they benefit from Social Security?

* Women weren't covered, since so few worked (at the time it passed).
It didn't matter back then right? After all, back then women were expected to work only until they could land husbands and become housewives and mothers.

So, who the heck was covered back then? Just mostly white males that worked for private companies or the government.

Wow, some "Progressive" reform there eh?

Did "Progressive" Democrats and the people in general have a huge tantrum and walk away because Social Security was so weak (compared to now) when it first passed?

Nope, they worked hard to add in all those people not covered at the time. It took a while too. About 10 years.

Interesting how back then the Southern Democrats (the Blue-Dog Conservatives of their day) were responsible for most of the discrimination against women and minorites being eligible for Social Security.

Just like they were responsible for trying to block and filibuster Civil Rights leglislation with LBJ in the 1960s.

Just like the Conservative Democrats are doing now, stalling on Healthcare reform.

It's about steps.

Progress doesn't come in one fell swoop. If anyone honestly believes it's worth reverting back to the last eight years just to spite the Democrats, than they don't deserve to call themselves progressives.

Wow. Eye opener.

Social security was an important step forward, even if it didn't cover everyone at the time.

Further, it didn't "not cover minorities" as you stated, but it only covered certain jobs and excluded others (which disproportionately reduced benefits to minorities).

But, that aside, it was the step that was most important.

Very simply... without the public option, we aren't taking any steps. We are just giving money to insurance companies and not even attempting to fix the real issues (for profit organizations having a strangle hold on our health care).

If there is no public option, there is no point to this legislation, except to take the health care issue off the table for 20 years or so.

I get it. You want a perfect liberal Utopian society. We all do. But taking your ball and going home if the healthcare plan isn't 100-percent to your liking completely undercuts everything you have worked for throughout your life.

You don't get it. We are the boss. Our employee works for us. If we aren't happy with the work, we fire the employee.

Sure, you might not think it does. You might not believe it matters. You may see no difference between a Democrat in the White House and a Republican, but you and I both know that's just bullshit.

I know that until Democrats get smart enough to quit offering market based Republican programs they deserve all the scorn they get

It's bullshit because eight years ago many on the left decided to sit out or vote Ralph Nader because Al Gore was not nearly as liberal as we would have liked. What did that get us?

8 years ago the Dems won the election, but were too lame to get their people out to fight. The Repos seized the day and shut down the recount while the Dems sat around with their thumbs up their noses.

There is not one person on DU who can honestly tell me Pres. Obama and Pres. Bush are even remotely alike in policy and the way they run this country. You can't tell me there would be no difference between another four years of the Obama administration and a new four years of Sarah Palin.

I'm very glad Obama won but he isn't dismantling the Empire. He's bought into empire just like bush was. I didn't expect any different and my expectations have been met, unfortunately.

So why act as if it's good to throw everything away because maybe the public option isn't as good as you'd like?
If we wanted Romney care we would have voted for Romney. So get a clue.

Remember how much damage the last eight years did to this country. Do you think it could handle a Palin or a Romney or a Jindal? I don't.
Funny you should bring up Romney, since it looks like the Dem is giving us his fucking plan or something too close to it. And no, I don't think we can handle that market based crap again one more time. How about a liberal solution for a change?

And if you're a true progressive, you'd do everything in your power to make sure no Republican sees the White House again.

Never say never. i can't imagine any Repo who I'd vote for for president, but I wouldn't go so far as to say it is impossible. Highly unlikely, but not impossible.

Because we all know even a flawed Democrat is better than the most perfect Republican.
That's illogical to the extreme. I do know that many a flawed Democrat is just as bad as the most perfect Repo.

Obama may have his flaws, but there is no doubt I feel safer and more confident with him in the Oval Office than I ever did with Bush.
well duh! i can't disagree with you there!

Ok, i hear where you are coming from. Dems can do anything, they could murder rape pillage and fuck your wife/husband/lover but you will vote for them forever because that's what you always do and that's all you know. You have forfeited all responsibility as a citizen and can only behave as a party slave. Well alrighty then

My problem is simple: The Obama White House fucked up by not having a coherent game plan. They let the Repugs monopolize the airwaves day after day, week after week. They let the Repugs malign, misrepresent, lie, swiftboat, intimidate at will and without any consequence. That was either incompetence or idiocy. All the while PLEDGING to let the Repugs inflict further damage in the name of bipartisanship. Well, that was fucking masochism.

But I'd so let Obama fuck my girlfriend.

Just as long as he'd let me watch, of course.

Someone could change their mind several times over between now and then.

I say it is too early to evaluate President Obama's performance.

But there are some early signs that he lacks strength, direction, confidence.

I wish he would get the Blue Dogs in the Oval Office for a serious spanking!

Did Bush/Cheney tolerate dissent and disloyalty among their Senators?

Obama is still great at making speeches but we knew that already.

needs to exercise LEADERSHIP on this issue. If he wants a Public Option, then dammit, he needs to fight for it!!!!

Now, if we liberals REALLY wanted the president to be a "purist," then we would be demanding a single payer system. But, as always, we tend to compromise because the Blue Dogs and the DLCers always want THEIR way.

My personal goalposts for the destination will wobble back and forth according to one thing or another, but to me seeing a guy in charge in the United States with a grasp of diplomacy, a grasp of civility, and a grasp of sentences with more than one clause is as big a relief as any specific policy he's pursuing.

I'm off in the other ninety-five percent of the planet and thus insulated from at least some of the effects of any successful or failed reform - although my attitude towards a push for any health reform down there is "took you guys fucking long enough" - but even starting to get the impression that the head of state of the current hyperpower is such that the place doesn't feel like a rogue state actively trying to undermine the rest of the global system is a big deal to me. That's too subjective to pin on any specific policy, I think, but I like that things are moving in that direction and hope they keep do so.

I'll probably move my goalposts on that one, carrot-on-a-stick-tied-to-forehead fashion, and gripe along the way that things aren't better enough as they get in that direction. But hey, there's something to be said for going after something that might be unattainable in such a way that even if you fall short things are still going better.

(In case it isn't obvious, I'm not a fan of the whole "this must abide by every item on my checklist or it is EVIL!" mindset. ;) )

The vast majority of us don't want that, but would like some sort of nod to liberals' interest. For instance on health care, most liberals want a single payer system, that would be their "Utopia." But being the pragmatists that we are, we're willing to settle for the public option. But now it looks like we're not even going to get the public option, but rather some assanine bullshit known as co-ops. Sorry, but we've already compromised on our original position, we're not going to approve a bullshit program that simply doesn't work.

What are we throwing away? A piece of legislation that has become an abomination.

It is also becoming increasingly clear that Democrats are becoming Republicans, again, witness the healthcare battle, and especially the Blue Dogs role in it. Thirty years ago Blue Dogs would have been comfortably in control of the Republican party, it is a sad measure of how far to the right we've gone that now they're in the Democratic party, while the theocrats are taking over the Republican party, leaving those of us on the left out in the cold.

This is a democracy, and the way things get done is that groups of people make their wishes known, as loud as possible. That's what the left is starting to do, and there are two ways the Democratic party can handle it. They can do what FDR did and embrace programs of the left in order to appease us and garner our support, or the party can continue to demonize and shun us, thus forcing us out of the party. It is up to the party. As it currently is now, we're being demonized and forced out. The healthcare battle is the last stand for many of us. If the Democrats, with their huge majorities in Congress, with their control of the White House, if they can't even bring home the compromise known as the public option, not even single payer but simply the public compromise, well then we're gone because it is obvious that our needs and wishes will never be realized within a righward sliding Democratic party. You don't like that, oh well, that's politics.

who runs on it, you have every right to become disillusioned when that candidate prefers bi-partisanship to securing the platform he ran on.

look it up when you're sober.

Good post.

:)

- look at the far right - they stick to the repukes even if they think the repukes are not far enough to the right. Have to give them that. They at least know when things are moving in their direction. They are more practical that way.

It seems to happen pretty darn quickly when the republicans are in power.

One step to the left, 10 steps to the right is how our system works.

I say things I would NEVER say in republican circles.
my momentary bitches never ever find their way into the voting booth.


so don't put too much stock in anything that gets posted here

simplify.

Many believe that a public option is the CORE to controlling costs in the health care system. Period.

You apparently don't agree. That's your opinion. Please respect others' opinions, when they disagree with YOU, instead of insulting them as whiney babies who didn't get their way. That's not the situation at all.

Plus....we are not all progressives here. We are a group of people united behind Obama and the Dems to try to effect some real change, after eight horrific years. Most are progressives, some are moderates, and some, like me, are Independents.

suggest I never really supported President Obama. I have an opinion regarding single payer based on a catastrophic real life event (almost lost my child because of the Insurance Cartel denials of care). Public Option is the compromise. I think those who suggest that we accept less than a public option are the ones not willing to meet progressives in the middle. They are caving to the demands of the republican minority of NO and the Insurance Cartel. In other words without at least a public option we are leaving health care in the hands of the status quo.

is based on a bad event as you describe.

Then again, mine is based on my indigent sister. It was her own fault she didn't have insurance. She had emotional problems, but that's no excuse. Still, she's a human being, and as a human being and a fellow citizen, I believe she had (and has) a right to at least some basic health care, despite her flaws.

I suppose many of us feel this way because of a personal experience. Those who don't may not have had to face this problem up close and personal. (Like Cheney, a staunch far right Republican who endorses gay marriage because his daughter is gay...he has had to face the issue up close and personal.)

I'm normally in favor of compromises. I'm not even far left. I didn't even firmly believe in the P.O. at first. But after much thought, I agree with you. I see the Public Option as a necessary component to controlling the out of control costs, and the only way to offer real choice. It IS a compromise from a single payer system. (Doesn't matter if the Dems compromise, anyway...the Republicans aren't going to vote for anything, so might as well go for the Public Option.)

and those about whom the OP was speaking is that you never once said in your post that you will not support President Obama ever again because you disagree with the way he is handling this issue.

...if this administration doesn't address the unpleasant issues and continues to "look forward", I really see no reason to remain a Democrat, and this is not easy for me to say, because I'm as Yellow Dog as they come. The Republican Party has left the realm of reality and our party is moving center right. There is no arguing that point. Look at who was invited to the table for the health care reform discussions. We are continuing a useless war, which will further bankrupt us, while still hiring criminal enterprises like Blackwater. Our education system produces functional illiterates, fit only to be corporate drones. Campaign finance reform is not even a topic and our voting system is corrupt. That's just a short list of grievances. Meanwhile, our representatives sit idly by and pull their fucking puds, while cashing in on lobbyist money; not all, of course, but those who actually walk the liberal walk, are ridiculed and marginalized within our own party, hell, even here on this website by some. In the history of our country, parties have come and gone. As the Democratic Party slowly but surely redefines itself as conservative (not through words, but through actions), a vacuum will form on the left end of the political spectrum. I'm starting to think that we have to consider supporting a true liberal movement. Perhaps, we won't see it achieved in our lifetime, but it will happen, if we don't rid ourselves of the DLCers. If the country goes back to the GOP out of retaliation, then it's clear we just haven't suffered enough.

I'm a Democrat because, as a liberal, I find my political home here (for the most part) and I'm not saying we should throw in the towel just yet. President Obama hasn't been in office long enough to make a definite judgment and, Shiva knows, he inherited a pile of shit from W. But, I'll say this much, if he doesn't finally pull out the big stick and put the lunatics in the GOP in their place, he will appear weak, and the cretins will blame him. I doubt he'll lose in 2012, but 2010 could be a day of reckoning for Congress. If he doesn't deliver a viable reform on health care, but rather a watered down version that continues to allow the insurance industry to pillage and murder the citizenry, I'm done.

They are getting their way.

Is it any wonder that there are more "Independents" than within the other two parties?

If the Parties continue this corporate conservative bent there will be more Independents than both parties combined.

Yes, I'm still a democrat but, in the future, will not vote for CORPORATE, blue dog and/or DLC candidates.

We don't have "the numbers" if it's ALWAYS *the FEW* corporate conservatives whose representatives RUN THE SHOW.

p.s. Us liberals and progressives are NOT low information voters.

Are you saying that people have to support everything Obama says and does?

There are very few people here on DU that do not support Obama as an alternative to a Republican administration.

Obviously you just don't get it.

There may be a "true progressive" candidate to support in the primaries then ~ I could see Howard Dean running again.

Big Bad Wolf.

Do try harder next time.

I'm beginning to think you don't care.... :)

It would explain all the Chavez supporters. Too many so-called "Progressives" want benevolent dictator that will wave his magic want and make everything better.