I have finally washed my hands off Obama.

and will not be voting for him in '12 unless he reads the numbers in the 2010 GE and go hard left, not go further to the right.

That means significant changes are to be made.

Eliminate DOMA
Eliminate DADT
Change from the mandatory insurance option to single payer health plan before 2014.
End Iraq and Afghanistan, withdraw all troops, and make massive cuts to the defense budget leaving them with country to defend, not to invade.
Use that massive cut to replenish the Treasury and allocated for infrastructure, education, economy, jobs, and more.
Remove the cap limit on FICA/Social Security
Fire the Cat Food Commission, and tell them nothing needs to be eliminated at the same time:
Introduce the corrected COLA increase (it was suppressed for many years) for all Social Security recipents and double the $940 cap limit in earnings. I get $2,000 a month (with my salary and SSDI), and it is barely enough to survive on.
Give up the school charter idea, and fire Arne Duncan, and rehire the fired teachers (using the massive cuts from the defense budget)
Introduce credit card fee limit of no more than 10%. Standard is 5% for everyone.
Let the big banks fail if they cannot sustain. (i.e., no more bailouts)
Amnesty on all underwater mortgages & high credit card balances - (yes, a citizen bailout)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ - MEANS MORE MONEY TO SPEND ON US PRODUCTS (and stimulate the economy)

That's all I gotta say.

. . . for the outcome of votes in your state in that election.

Don't blame the WH for that. That's all I've got to say.

and there seemed to be many things he was angry about. But I don't see where said he was angry because the white house wasn't getting out the vote in his state.

It seems to me what he said was:

As a voter he has things he would like to see done.
He won't vote for a candidate who won't do at least some, if not most of those things.

Not sure how that relates to whether or not he gets people in his state to vote. And if anything why would you suggest he get people to vote for someone who does not share his beliefs?

General elections where republican alternatives threaten are not the time and place to sit on our hands and protest. That's what I understood the poster threatening (apart from the very valid complaints listed).

We had a primary in '08. There was a candidate who said he supported some variation on most if not all of those things the OP listed. Many of us voted for that candidate in the primary. Then most of us voted for that person in the general election. And now many, if not most of those things are outwardly stymied if not completely ridiculed by that same person and/or his staff and spokespeople.

So while I agree in theory, I'm not sure why I would ever expect anyone to expect a different outcome this time.

I'm as lost for a solution to these fair weather politicians as you are. I'm just not convinced that there's some practical or productive effect to opting out of voting. Even if there was some deep level strategy to shake up the electorate or potential candidates, I really don't think we can afford the time it would take for the political landscape to swing from right to acceptable-left again. It all seems like nothing more than an epic pout, without some clear path to what we advocate for. There isn't always one available from voters. That doesn't release us from our responsibility for defending against the many other issues and constructions that republicans threaten to effect with their party's advancement.

..if the office of the president is as helpless and neutered as people defending Obama on these issues want us to believe.......then honestly what difference does it make if a Repbublican gets elected? Does that make George Bush not responsible for everything that happened on his watch?

Here's the thing: I refuse to be like the republicans. I refuse to put a political party before what I believe in. I refuse to suddenly not feel strongly about issues and about holding elected officials feet to the fire on them because...."well that's just the way it is." I also refuse to switch my standards of who is responsible for what. If I can blame George Bush for pushing through a right wing agenda and playing hardball with the elected congressional members of his party, then I can sure as hell blame Obama for not doing the same. If president Palin or president McCain would be as bad as I'm led to believe by many on this board because of the awesome (yet terrible) things they would do as president, then I'm not going to dismiss or not hold Obama accountable for the awesome (awesome good) things that he's actively and willfully choosing not to do in that same office.

Maybe others can be so wishy washy, but I can't.

. . . but Palin, McCain, or Bush are far worse than our Democratic candidate our President.

As I said, there are far more issues that this President has proactively confronted the right on and addressed than there are under debate and opposition with the left.

..and look he HE got rewarded for his 'bi-partisan' efforts..

Seems that Obama isn't that swift afterall..he can't be 'cos he hasn't figured out yet just how quickly the wingnuts will drum up some bullshit to impeach him with if they regain the House in November..

..didn't cave so easily at the outset of every negotiation, and to my memory he didn't metaphorically shit on his own base in the way that Obama seems o.k. having his staff do at seemingly every possibly opportunity.

I didn't LOVE Clinton's triangulation but he was much more graceful about it and his staff was much more managed about how they handled it. He had his "Sister Souljah" moment to be sure but that was pretty early on.

Even when he did something that the left didn't like such as Welfare Reform, he made sure there was enough red meat left over to satisfy the base. Maybe I'll be proven wrong and Obama will show himself to be just as masterful as Clinton was and the results will speak for themselves. I doubt it, but anything is possible.

They don't get to corrupt the primaries and pour in money and then get an entitlement vote as the prize for a bogus process.

They keep people off ballots and every other trick in the book because they are playing to win and have the power.
They also fight to maintain the current crooked system of political contributions and unverifiable computer tabulations.

Hell, if all that fails the party maintains bullshit super delegates in case the will of the people needs to be vetoed.

which is the incorrect move.

The leadership of Colorado wants and still wants Romanoff.

support to sitting Senators. That is the price of getting things passed through the Senate. If Obama's backing of Bennet is a major factor in your thinking then you need to gain some perspective because sitting Presidents are not going to get invovlved in primary fights, and it would have been irresponsible for him to do so. I hope that Romanoff wins as well although I am not well informed of the details of the race.

Refuses PAC money (and will continue during GE, via DSCC ala Obama the candidate)
Has proven record of bipartianship, including squeezing balls
Outstanding legislative record (he was my state rep, and Speaker of the State House)
He has visited every county in Colorado and listened to the people (ala Howard Dean)

A sitting President has to work with the Senators that are in the Senate.

The President is not in a position to work with those Senators and then turn around and endorse their primary opponent, not going to happen.

got extremely involved in the Colorado Democratic primary - he loaned Bennet the use of Organizing for America - whose people were heavily involved in phone banking and knocking on doors, plus he came to 3 Colorado fundraisers earlier this year and helped raise 3/4 of a million dollars for Bennet.


"irresponsible" hardly covers it, and Obama had better hope he hasn't alienated enough Democrats to effect the general election this fall.

Fuck you, moon!

it does leave me wondering what in the heck your hands were doing *on* him. Did Michelle know? Approve? :P

Sorry, you have my sympathy. I gave up on him a while back...

Sid

DU-wise, that is. :thumbsup: :kick:

Did you send it to your senators too?

all by himself. :eyes:

and put someone else on. Durbin, maybe, Romanoff hell yes.

Hawkeye-X

In a little over 2 years, he needs to dismantle the entire, 60-year entrenched Military Industrial Complex all without a single congressional vote.

progressive, incremental change my ass.

"End Iraq and Afghanistan, withdraw all troops, and make massive cuts to the defense budget leaving them with country to defend, not to invade."

I said enough money for defense of the country, not dismantle it. Hence the name "Department of Defense" not "Department of I am gonna bomb everything back to stone age"

and even CC'ed to Andrew. He knows the task before him.

And he has the balls to twist arms and kick Rethug ass.

Hawkeye-X

Do it all immediately, whether Congress passes the legislation or not.

..that he wanted to see Obama forcefully support and endorse those things and encourage Congress to pass those things? Would that really have made you say "Hmm....o.k. I can understand that. I may not agree with it, but it is valid to want to hold him accountable for what he can do."

You see, what you're missing about me is that I support every one of those issues. The difference is that I know just how far President Obama can push the current Congress. He has pushed exactly that far and gotten things passed, and just barely.

If you think he could have gotten more through Congress at any particular point, please describe what more we missed.

See, the thing is that I can't blame Obama for every thing I want that hasn't been enacted. He is not the Dictator of the USA. He is the President of a system of government that requires things to happen through legislation and assigns Congress to the task of creating and passing such legislation.

That's real. That's how it is. I don't like the pace of progress. I don't like the idea of giving things back to the Republicans, though, a lot more.

Do I support President Obama? I do. Do I want more progressive things to happen? Absolutely, which is why I'm working on giving him a larger, better majority in Congress.

The POTUS cannot create legislation and force it to be passed.

could stop enforcing DADT.

That would be something.

That is the goal. If he did something as CiC, there would be less pressure on the Congress to finish off this stupid policy.

It sucks for some until it's finally over. But, it needs to be finally over. Any Executive blocking of DADT would just relieve the pressure on Congress. That's not the way to do it. It's really not.

Respectfully, of course.

Hey... big ol' Polish Festival this coming weekend at St. Anthony Main.
Kramarczuk's sausages will be served. YUM!

http://www.tcpolishfestival.org/

We have a thing on Minnetonka on Sunday, but...

if I buy your argument that there is absolutely nothing more he could have "done" to get those things passed through congress in a way that would please those of us that are very disgruntled, then that makes it even more cowardly that he didn't come out more vocally in support of those things. That makes it even more cowardly that he didn't more directly confront those that were and are against those things. But not only didn't he provide anywhere near enough verbal and moral support for those actions and for encouraging and pushing more follow through on behalf of congress, he's sat by while his staff excoriates those who do and those who advocate for that. If nothing he did or didn't do was going to change what Congress did, then what harm could have come from him standing up for liberal ideals in a more strong and unequivocal manner? Would he have alienated the republicans who will never vote for him anyway? Would he have alienated independents who he appears to be alienating anyway? At least he would have the support of some very important democratic groups, and many of which helped to get him elected.

I'm o.k. with "failure" so to speak. I understand that there may not have been the votes for a public option, or for more teeth on the financial reform, or for closing Gitmo, and everything else on the list. The problem is that there was no fight on the part of the president. And in fact not only wasn't there any clear and noticeable support for those things, he spent more time attacking those advocating from the left (ie. Kucinich, etc.) than he did those advocating from the right. And yes, we can agree to disagree on what constitutes a fight.

Security advocates Alan Simpson, Pete Peterson, Ryan, Bowles et al on what was supposed to be a Deficit Commission? Who do you blame for the President going back on his promise not to have such Commissions?

We have heard the recommendations of those Republicans. Recommendations that tie, falsely, SS to the Deficit. Who do you blame for the fact that while most Economists have said this Commission is already discredited, focusing as it has on SS which has ZERO to do with the Deficit, for the fact that President Obama has not slammed them for their transparent attempts to use this Commission to push a long-held Republican dream of privatizing SS?

I know this, if he does not come out quickly and backtrack on his own statements tying the Deficit to SS, he will not only have to worry about 'the professional left'. All polls on SS show that a vast majority of Americans want this government to keep their hands off SS and that crosses political lines.

It doesn't help to not hold politicians responsible for their own actions. Congress did not declare Offshore Drilling to be safe, the president did. And Congress did not recommend this Commission and nominate Republicans to run it. This is the President's Commission.

We railed against the right for not holding their elected officials accountable. These issues are far bigger than political parties. That's what many people do not seem to have grasped and lashing out at people is not the way to deal with the genuine concerns of the American people, not just the 'left', a ploy, calling anyone who disagrees with you 'the left' mostly used by the right.

Independents are the demographic most likely to turn away from a party that is not, in their opinion, keeping the promises made that won them over.

like the Prez. The Congresspeople have to answer for the people, not the corporations.

I've said this before, and I will bear it repeating:

THROW OUT THE CONSERVATIVE AND THE IMBECILES AND PUT IN PROGRESSIVE PEOPLE TO ADDRESS THE AGENDA!

Yup.

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

"Please, it will bite me."

If you meant to say, "Please bite me," that would be:

Пожалуйста сдержите меня.

This Russian lesson brought to you by the USAF Language School and your friendly USAFSS Veteran.

I used Google Translate to act like Pitr from Userfriendly :)

it'd be deleted, so it's off to Google translate we go...and you can't even get that right.

Hilarious stuff.

the other language well enough to know when Google screws up. Google screws up quite frequently, but if you use it with knowledge, it works OK.

and it didn't end well - the actual translation garbled to imply that I wanted to massage her chest.

It's good that she understands English better than I do German.

Here's a tip:

When you use machine translation, always:

1. Write in simple, declarative sentences in the language to be translated.
2. Use simple, unambiguous vocabulary.
3. Reverse translate the results from the target language back to the original language.

When I was in Russian Language School in the USAF, we had to write an essay in Russian about what our life goals were. At one point, I wanted to say that I wanted to be a bum. Trouble was that the dictionary I was using was printed in England, so the Russian came out to read: "I want to be an arse." We had to read our essays aloud in class. The very lovely native-speaker who was our instructor for that class almost peed her pants. After she stopped giggling, she explained the error, and the whole class almost fell out of their chairs.

I learned a very good lesson...one which has stood me in good stead ever since.

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

You might be able to have Bush amnesia in 2012. But should you actually succeed in electing a Republican, you will come crawing back to vote for Ben Nelson for president if he wins the nomination. It's purely a matter of survival instinct -- we have evolved to not continuously inflict pain on ourselves.

Republicans are not going anywhere either, it's just that it kind of merged to one party system because these a-holes seem to work well with each other and get the most out of the taxpayers while screwing them.

That is not what I elected my senators for (One is appointed but will be be a lame duck appointment tonight)

What needs to differentiate is that there must be ideological difference between the centrists and the left as well as the right.

The centrists has to go. They've been straddling the fence too damn long.

Nader voters thought they wouldn't be back either. Yet 90% of them left Nader after 4 years. A presidency like Bush can do wonders to focus the mind.

My point is that you'll be back even if you are saying otherwise at the current moment.

and that's who I *FEEL* should have enjoyed his second term, while the economy prospers, and none of that shit is happening right now. (GoM, bailouts, letting Chimp get away with his crimes, etc.)

:sarcasm:

And God damn every last coward in the DLC - especially Robert Gibbs - for what they did to sabotage Dr. Dean. :grr:

If I expect a magician, I should vote for one!

Sid

I want a unicorn, dammit! And it better fly, too!

...unless Obama gives me a pony. I want my pony and I want it right now. It has to be a real pretty one, not just any old pony someone drags in off the street.

Screw everyone else. I have my unrealistic, fantasy world expectations and I damn well expect them to be fulfilled!

Is this a typical reaction for you, or is this just what you do when someone speaks the truth about your hero?

to discern truth.

Since you haven't been back on the thread you started to reply to anyone

I do work for a living.

Have fun doing whatever it is you do.

:rofl:

I was done the day he praised firing the teachers in RI.

but the best system yet developed. The founders intentionally created a system that would move slowly. They succeeded.

done the way that the left perceives as the right path for Americans today.

Too many compromises, and that has to end right there. Rethugs are the enemy and needs to be destroyed or stay the fuck out of the agenda of the Democratic Party.

2010 is a Congressional election. November is just down the road. Time's a'wastin'!

All congressional races are local, and all Senate races are state races. Every race is different.

I voted for him in '08, I'm not doing so again in 2012.

I want flying cars and free beer

and if Obama can't deliver

I'm staying home

whaaaaaaaa

:rofl:

to Republicans so they can totally screw us all!!!

:sarcasm:

...

so your stance is exactly the same as holding your breath until you turn blue.

I'm surprised the Secret Service let you get away with that. :rofl:

Sure. No sweat. Would you like paper or plastic with all of that?

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

Why are you not washing your hands of them?

Obama is addressing at least three of your issues. Some of the other issues were completely taken out of his hands because of Congress and the Blue Dogs, and some of your other issues are just NOT happening. I know it's heartwrenching not to get everything you want, but not getting everything you want is part of "GROWING UP, AND BECOMING AN ADULT".

:hi:

I wish some of the die-hards that are "ok" with him going right would realize that by not going left, he is hurting himself and the party. All indications are that the time to go left is now.

K&R

Now maybe you'll stop posting about him. That's how washing your hands of someone works, right? You move on and don't talk about them again? If only a great deal of DU could wash their hands of Obama. I'd gladly trade their vote for their posting on another topic other than how evil the President is. :)

not turn on us.

Abandoning principles was never going to happen.

I honestly feel sorry that some don't see it, but what can we do to be more clear.

I wanted this President to be great and I welcome when he and his administration embrace the left. Until then, I'll wait and consider my responsibilities.

to challenge their detention.

For me the bar was not raised very high when I voted. I "expected" him to be somewhat of a centrist but I never imagined this much of a move to the right and the right hating him for it. I also never expected total reinforcement of the Bush era policies of rendition and violations of civil liberties in the name of protection. I have got to admit I didn't see that, or the reinforcement of anti choice legislation and support for those who do not support "Choice".

But Obama has gone in the wrong direction on ALL those issues.

but i tell ya what i will do..

not send money to any democratic organisation and
vote for any primary challenge in protest.

ill continue to support left non profit groups, but ill be damned if anybody in the party is gonna see a damn penny of my money.

to a proud group of retards and drug addicts.

We still stick to old-fashioned and unpragmatic constructs like "principles," but we mean well.

:P