Democrats won in 08 becauise of populist anger. The party is slipping because they ignored it.

That in a nutshell is what I believe is happening.

People voted for change. Instead they get more of the status quo.

They voted for "yes we can." Instead they get "We can't do this because...."

They voted to put the fatcats in their place. Instead they see the fatcats invited into the inner circle.

The Democrats would be doing a lot better if they had behaved like the party that channeled populist anger into real progressive/liberal reform. Instead the party leadership has been the party of the "squishy status quo" and left it to the conservatives the GOP to claim the mantle of populist change.

Obama and the rest of the Democratic leadership shopiold have been taking cues from people like Harkin, Brown, Weiner and other clearly liberal and progressive legislators, instead of pandering to the Baucuses and Bayhs and trying to foist Clinton 2 on us.

Mass is electing a Senator has nothing to do with 2008 campaign promises.

Obama's approval rating in Mass is still very high.

I posted about that earlier today.

But Massachusetts is part of a national trend in which the Democratic Party is being perceived by too many people as a complacent party of insiders, instead of a party of mules kicking the doors open for the people.

The Democrats should be OWNING the loyalty of people right now (except for hardcore Republicans and teabagger nuts) as a party that is fighting for clear and unambiguous reform.

Instead, people are becoming even more cynical and tuned out as they see the Democrats playing ball with the wrong crowd, and giving excuses for why the things most people want can't be done.

Done played that game too often. "Show me proof." So one takes the time to dig up and present facts supporting their position. "That's not really proof" is the reply. So one goes out and dogs up more evidence. "That's still not proof. Those are biased sources." This goes on and on, until one realizes that nothing is ever going to be specific enough unless it agrees with the challenger.

So let's just make a little bet. Early in November, we'll see how it went.

I hope that I am being too pessimistic. I honestly hope the Democratic leadership takes some vitamins and realizes why the people sent them there, and start freally pushing as the Party of Progressive Reform and skunks the GOP.

But the clock is running out.

haven't presented situation to support your OP. What?

and was personally wondering where Massachusetts came from, myself.

:shrug:

... wether it makes sense or not regarding the topic/comment at hand seems to be irrelevant for them.

I do hope at least they get some stipend from the DLC, shilling for free in such overt fashion during these though economic times is just silly.

It does not matter how relevant the post is.

The party is in trouble because our leaders are too centrist and too subservient to corporate interests. You know this as well as anyone.

If I'd wanted more centrist Clintonism, more Clintonistas in office, I'd have voted for Hillary.

The primary reason I voted for Obama in the Primary was that Obama wasn't Clinton, and I wanted things to move back toward addressing the needs of the middle-class, and dare I say it? The poor.

You notice Democrats don't even use "the poor" in their language anymore. The Poor, have no one, no one at all.

Happy to Parrot the DLC Talking points until the reader dies of boredom.

Have to break it to you pal, but Obama's trumped up Popularity Polls are not part of any reality other than the continaul manufactured Reality you subscribe to.

The board is so much more pleasant. Trust me.

that while people still love Obama as a person, fewer and fewer of them support his policies.

If you wait until the mid-term elections to find out how well Obama's middle-of-the road path is being received by the voters, you might as well forget getting Obama re-elected.

Clinton got by with blaming others and the economy and all sorts of things for the losses the Democrats suffered in 1994. But the truth is that even Clinton would have done much better had he governed with more openness and defended more liberal policies.

People blame the insurance companies' ads for the defeat of the Clinton attempt to reform health care. But as I recall, having lived through that period as an interested adult, the real problem was that the Clintons tried to foist a health care plan on Americans that had been put together behind closed doors and without considering all alternatives.

Unfortunately, although Obama does not admit it, he made the same mistake. He negotiated with the pharmaceutical companies behind closed doors and pretty much forced Congress to accept the horrible terms to which he agreed. He refused to allow single payer advocates to sit at the table with the insurance companies while plotting his "reform." Then, in spite of claiming almost to the end that he supported it, he cavalierly dismissed the importance of a public option.

Of course, Obama and Congress made a huge show of holding a public debate. Problem is, they ignored the public's express wish for a public option (emphasizing option) for those who are not already insured and wish that option.

Obama now looks like two words that start with h and l and I don't want to use them on DU. He is a great guy but he let the American people down on these issues among others.

Of course, Obama is not responsible for the horrible state of the economy. The problem is that he is responsible of the cover-up of the crimes that did cause the undoing of our economy.

I have said before and I will say again that I want Obama and the Democrats to succeed.

And they could easily do so -- but they have to find the integrity within themselves to do the right thing. Obama has shown integrity in that he, unlike Bush, takes responsibility when he makes a mistake. Now, he needs to take responsibility for the mistake of putting on a show of listening to the American people but not really responding to their needs, fears and wishes.

Nobody wants a pony. But we want a better excuse than "They won't let me do it" when basic things like jobs and a rational health care plan that can cut costs are not achieved.

And most important, we want accountability -- not just for teachers but for Wall Street and those in the Bush administration who committed crimes.

for the problems and the dumbbells are saying yeah. I am concerned that a state senator who has no record of any achievement in the legislature is going to tap into the anger. He is an awful person.

Hoo-boy, is that ever wrong...

it's ludicrous to think that people sat out the primary, an opportunity to select among Democrats, just to elect a teabagger.

Ludicrous.

n/t

more so in Mass.

But honestly, I couldn't understand what you were getting at.

When a post hits too near the mark, some like you see here, jump in with distractions and misdirection. They have nothing to say about the post, just a lot of inane bickering about anything to draw the discussion away from the point.

This OP was way too accurate. So the strategy is to hijack the thread with bombast and ideas that were never a part of the subject.

It's getting old, but most people are catching on to it because it is always the same posters over and over.

exact same shit..and most of them were paid per post.

:)

it would almost seem....you know, scripted.

:thumbsup:

onto something, I think.

:crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy:

By their fruits shall ye know them.

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

you should refrain from judging her on her call.

I can't defend or condemn what Coakley did, but I can tell you not placing a former police officer in detention for an act to which he has confessed can be a wise decision. Prosecutions can take a lot of time. Coakley may have had very good reasons for the delay. I don't know, but there may have been a confidential proceeding concerning the suspect's conduct and contact with the child in a different court that needed to be decided before the criminal case could be brought and heard. That is sometimes the case in California.

Had Coakley placed the officer in jail for child abuse before getting a conviction she could have caused the loss of his life at the hand of another prisoner and then discovered that he was innocent. I know. He confessed, but incredible as it may seem, real people sometimes confess to things they did not do especially if they want to protect someone else. That is probably not the case here, but then do you know whether it is or not?

We should not judge things we don't really know much about. I am not exonerating Coakley. I'm just saying that we should not judge her one way or the other either because we may not know some of the facts. Some of them may be very confidential. Child abuse cases usually do involve a lot of confidential information including hearsay evidence, psychiatric reports, etc. that may not be made public or considered in evidence in other courts.

From what I read, the then suspect had admitted the crime and did not, in her judgment, appear to be a flight risk or a risk to that or any other child. The courts and prisons are full of people who present an imminent danger, some of them, to children. This man did not. He was convicted and is now in prison from what I understand.

Harm was done before Coakley had anything to do with the case. No harm was done because she delayed prosecution. Meanwhile, she probably prosecuted people who posed an immediate and ongoing threat to a child or children.

In medicine the practice of treating the most serious cases first is called triage. There is no name for the practice in law, but the fact is that sheriffs and prosecutors have to set priorities. It is reasonable to consider the danger the person poses as more important rather than the egregiousness of the crimes in prioritizing cases. Both are legitimate factors. And, yes, prosecutors do enjoy discretion in deciding these things. In fact, it is called prosecutorial discretion.

So if you voted against Coakley because of the case, I believe that you made a serious error. While she may not have made the best decision, based on what I know about the case, she made an acceptably reasonable decision.

As I said a few days ago... dems will learn nothing from this loss if it happens.

A shame.

You are going to have to do better than that.

I did not vote for Brown.

I voted against Obama's Healthcare plan, and to make it easier to get a populist Democrat seated in '13.

It was weird, I almost just stayed home, but if I am not heard, I've got to vote louder.

Brown is a stinker. Did you watch ohbermand and Rachel said last night. The clip about Obamas's family? He is such a snot. I hate him.

had nothing whatsoever to do with my vote.

The chance for any change will be gone by then.

There was going to be no change without something changing. This may not be it, but the alternative has proven not to be it, maybe we'll get lucky and this will prompt some coalition building with People, and not just Republicans and corporations..

This was never supposed to be an administration in which the Left was out in the cold. We had a right to expect to be equal partners in this era.

You're sending the message that anything other than conservatism will get trounced at the polls. You voted for a Republican. People will come away with the idea that you like Republicans.

DUers are the only fools who thought the Savior had arrived and that Obama would bring us to the Promised Land.

Are they happy thus far?

Obama never promised anyone a rose garden.

His words were Yes.WE.Can.

Unless WE all work together for the election of Democrats instead of some ranting in easily recognized code for the other team, WE will not be able to WIN.

until he got in...

And we found out who "we" was...

Wall St., health insurance corporations, Big PhRMA, Coal, Oil, Gas and Nuclear...that's who "we" was...

Progressives? Never in the equation...

Populism? "Who, Me?", said Obama.

Didn't surprise me though...

Why do people continue to use talking points and strategies that are a complete failure?

Your talking point doesn't change the facts. Promises that were made, NOT to adapt Republican policies, such as Mandated Insurance, taxes on health insurance, fines, using the IRS as a collection agency for Private Insurance, and a Republican favorite, selling Ins. across State lines, all those promises have been broken.

Friends in Mass. telll ME, they KNOW what Romneycare looks like, they were hoping that Democrats would work on real Health Care reform. Their premiums have gone up each year with Romney Care, half a million people are still not covered. The fines have doubled, all this in just three years.

Keep delivering your inane talking points and refuse to take your fingers out of ears and open your eyes, the rest of us will keep trying to save this Party from itself. Because your way will guarantee a Republican majority in the not-too-distant future.

to show the American people that a liberal agenda can deliver meaningful changes to the political structure of DC. We've squandered trust and that is hard to earn back, especially among the youth. The GOP has become reinvigorated by this. They've incorporated populism (of course it's false populism) as one of their key messages for the upcoming elections. My question is why is the Obama team going down this road? It's such terrible political strategy. You're trading a loyal, enthusiastic and growing voting base for the assurance of huge sums of corporate $. They've miscalculated badly and I think they're beginning to realize it.

What do you mean "we", Kimosabe?

-jim

to acomplish that feat. Unfortunately, they are few a far between.

They are the slime that is coating that machine's takeover of our nation.

With our money gone to the Big Banksters via Obama's approved of Bernanke, and also his appointment of Geithner, and then his Monsanto clones at Big Ag Dept and FDA, and now the Health Care Giveaway to the murderous bastards who have killed us off and kept us sick for the last fifteen years, he is making only the Powers that be happy.

However as the Powers that Be also control the elections via electronic machinery, I am convinced he will get two terms.

Real change takes time and our culture doesn't get that. They expected Obama to perform miracles; had very unrealistic expectations of him.

The belly-aching progressives are the ones causing damage to the party.

that's only for the very politically aware.

I barely know who Geithner is or why he's so evil - most of the people on here spouting that meme take it for granted and never back it up.

when the economy melted down, to start?

and again, in ways that helped his bankster cronies and harmed ordinary working Americans, whose hard earned tax dollars are funding the banksters

no one is taking anything for granted:






"If you want to know how Wall Street coasted through the recession, make sure you check out MoJo's Kevin Drum and David Corn's recent chat with Bill Moyers. But if you want the short version, check out these charts and infographics from our current issue. We've crunched the numbers on the real size of the bailout (try $14 trillion and counting), how Wall Street barons lined their nests while the sky fell around them, federal aid for the lenders behind the subprime mess, and Big Finance's favorite members of Congress. And there's more (see below). Make sure you've taken your blood pressure meds first....'



The Bankers on Obama's Team

The latest round of Wall Street muckety-mucks now in charge of regulation.

— By Andy Kroll

GOLDMAN SACHS CEO turned Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson wasn't the first, or the last, to use the revolving door between Wall Street and Washington. Here's a short list of Obama officials who got their start in the private sector—many, like Paulson, at "Government Sachs."

OFFICIAL
CURRENT ROLE IN WASHINGTON
PREVIOUS ROLE ON WALL STREET

Neal Wolin
Deputy secretary of the treasury (Tim Geithner's No. 2)
Exec at one of the largest insurance and investment firms

Mark Patterson
Treasury secretary's chief of staff
Goldman Sachs lobbyist

Gene Sperling
Counselor to the treasury secretary
Made nearly $900,000 advising Goldman Sachs

Larry Summers
Obama's chief economic adviser
Made $5 million as managing director of a hedge fund

Rahm Emanuel
White House chief of staff
Made $16 million as a partner at a Chicago investment bank

Herbert Allison
Assistant secretary of the treasury (oversees TARP)
Longtime exec at Merrill Lynch; headed Fannie Mae

Kim Wallace
Assistant secretary of the treasury for legislative affairs
Managing director at Barclays Capital and Lehman Brothers

Karthik Ramanathan
Acting assistant treasury secretary for financial markets
Foreign exchange dealer at Goldman Sachs

Matthew Kabaker
Deputy assistant secretary of the treasury
Made $5.8 million at the Blackstone Group in 2008-2009

Lewis Alexander
Counselor to the treasury secretary
Chief economist at Citigroup; paid $2.4 million in 2008-2009

Adam Storch
Managing executive of the SEC's Division of Enforcement
VP of Goldman Sachs' Business Intelligence Group

Lee Sachs
Counselor to the treasury secretary
Made more than $3 million at a New York hedge fund

Gary Gensler
Chairman of Commodity Futures Trading Commission
18 years at Goldman Sachs, where he made partner

Michael Froman
Deputy assistant to Obama, deputy nat'l security adviser
Managing director of a Citigroup investment arm



******************************

Geithner's Other AIG Rescue
— By Andy Kroll
| Thu Jan. 7, 2010 1:42 PM PST.Via Daniel Indiviglio at The Atlantic, a report by Bloomberg turns up some grisly facts about Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner's tenure at his former employer, the New York Fed—namely, how the New York Fed told AIG to keep mum about its swaps deals with other banks that would benefit if AIG got bailed out.

According to emails obtained by Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), the New York Fed cut from a draft of an AIG regulatory filing mention that banks like Goldman Sachs and Societe Generale had swaps agreements with AIG and would benefit from AIG's rescue via a "backdoor bailout"—a troubling omission at a time when AIG's fate was up in the air and full disclosure was critical. Bloomberg quotes Issa as saying, "It appears that the New York Fed deliberately pressured AIG to restrict and delay the disclosure of important information." Taxpayers, he added, "deserve full and complete disclosure under our nation's securities laws, not the withholding of politically inconvenient information."

Indiviglio uses the latest revelation in the AIG counterparty saga to not only insist that the overly opaque Fed doesn't deserve any more authority (as I did yesterday), but to even question Geithner's position as Treasury Secretary. Without a doubt, that Geithner's New York Fed tried to cover up AIG's exposure is embarassing at the very least; it's also more broadly indicative of the Fed's belief that it can get away with almost anything behind closed doors. Is that the kind of regulator, as some have proposed, that should be tasked with overseeing financial institutions and markets?

snip

http://motherjones.com/mojo/2010/01/geithners-other-aig-rescue

**************************

Congress is fed up with the Treasury Department's lack of bailout transparency and, more specifically, its refusal to account for how rescued financial institutions have used their billions in taxpayer funds. And rightly so. It's only fair that, in bailing out struggling financial institutions, Geithner and Co. track how those taxpayer dollars have actually been used. Specifically, whether they've been used for their intended purpose (boosting lending to small businesses and consumers), or simply to shore up their balance sheets—as appears to be closer to the truth. Since Geithner failed to respond to a May letter from 20 House and Senate Democrats on this subject, Congress is taking matters into its own hands. It has inserted into the FY 2010 Financial Services and Government Appropriations bill language to legally mandate that Geithner either increase oversight and transparency over the use of bailout funds, or show up before Congress and explain why not.

The Treasury's rationale for not tracking these funds, an excuse they've been peddling for months now, is that it's essentially impossible to track the flow of bailout funds once they're in the banks' coffers. But that's BS. The Special Inspector General for TARP, or SIGTARP, said in its April quarterly report to Congress (PDF) that it had gathered this very information by surveying 364 banks that had received funds before January 31. All SIGTARP did was send letters to the banks and ask nicely. As the 20 lawmakers wrote in May:

snip

http://motherjones.com/mojo/2009/07/congress-hey-geither-show-us-money

************************

haven't stopped. And people sure as hell noticed the Wall Street & Bankster bailouts.

They don't have to know who the fuck Timothy Geithner is to know that they're getting the shit end of the stick.

The fucking over of the working class in the U.S. isn't privileged information, they KNOW they're being fucked. And with the Dems in power, that's who the fuckees will look upon as the fuckers.

It's the very disdain for the "ordinary people" reflected in your post that will reap their backlash. And in a locked down two-party system such as ours, they have nowhere else to go to express their unhappiness except to the opposition party.

I'd say it's YOU who are sadly lacking in "political awareness".

sw

I don't see any.

All I see is more war and more favors for the corporations.

more war, check.
more favors to corporations. check.

The comment looks pretty damn accurate to me.. and the rest of the country as well I might add. These are dirt simple concepts.
What exactly are you babbling about, when you say , "That's pretty much all you ever see."

I think you are the delusional one here.

The people who are most committed are the ones who reflect what average people are feeling to a lesser level.

The "Teabaggers" are the committed conservatives, and they've given the GOP a wake up call, which the GOP is heeding.

But Democrats like you who dismiss and denigrate the "bellyaching prtogressives" are the reason the party is but a pale shadow of what it could and should be.

Obama has put top priority on helping Wall Street banksters, Big Pharma, and the health insurance corporations, at the terrible expense of ordinary working and middle class Americans

just read and you'll learn

no one is expecting instant gratification, except perhaps the banksters and corporations, who received it immediately!

:eyes:

Yeah, gods forbid we actually hold our (D) president to his campaign promises and the published Democratic Party platform.

They always want stuff.

Change takes vision and assertion, the vision doesn't even have to be sane it just has to resonate with the people, and be firmly pushed through from the front. Making and keeping corporations whole, caving in to the minority party, continuing the run-away military, and not acting quickly to restore the civil liberties and rule of law usurped during the last 8 years, are all non-reasonating positions. Back room deals do not lead from the front, they hide behind Congres's skirt.

Change takes a changer, we People are now the only changers left to get the job done.

:eyes:

Real Progressives had NO expectations of him. We knew he was a corporate tool.

We were hoping he'd succumb to the FDR effect -- the corporate tool who had to become slightly "liberal" in order to save capitalism from itself.

Instead, he channels Hoover...

Oh, well, move on folks, nothing to see here...

and one that was fiscally responsible but also put working Americans first

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

Mostly from the diehard healthcare supporters. They deride progressives and liberals and call them names. They accuse them of being haters. The angrily spew vitriol and venom at them. Not good.

Progressives and liberals are the base of the Democratic party, like it or not. Alienate them and you can kiss the Congress goodbye.

:thumbsup:

I really don't think you're worthy of a reply, but I'll do it anyway.

I hate to break it to you, but liberals and progressives aren't the base of the party. At least no more than the moderate and conservative voters in many areas throughout this nation.

What's silly is this belief that the liberals are bolting the party because of Pres. Obama. FUCKING PROVE IT. You can't. All evidence points to Pres. Obama polling his best among liberal and progressive voters. That's a fact. Check Gallup and ABC and every other goddamn approval poll out there.

See, the facts don't jive with your baseless argument.

You know why Pres. Obama's approval ratings have slipped and Democrats are hurting? Because a good many of Americans think the Democratic Party has moved too far to the left! I know that's hard to believe because you've all flanked yourself even further left than those who call themselves liberals, but it's reality. A plurality disapprove of the healthcare bill because they think it's too liberal. Not too conservative or because they perceive it to be a corporate giveaway.

Again, the facts.

Liberals aren't voting for Scott Brown because Pres. Obama is too conservative. That notion might be the most pathetically asinine thing I've heard here!

It's the conservative Democrats. The Democrats who backed Reagan and voted Romney for governor, who are backing Brown now because they think Washington has gone too far to the left.

Now you can sit there and bitch and complain about Pres. Obama not being progressive enough or not liberal enough and you'll just be pissing in the wind. You know what will happen? The Democratic Party will lose to Republicans. They will lose to Republicans similarly to how Republicans lost to Democrats a few years ago. They'll look more moderate (Brown is running as a moderate against the leftist extremism of Washington) and they'll gain power that way.

That's the path we're heading down if people refuse to look at the facts. Get off this bullshit that the Democratic Party is losing because it's not liberal enough. It's losing not because the liberals aren't voting or supporting Pres. Obama (polls suggest they are at a higher rate than conservative Democrats), it's losing because the perception at this point is that Pres. Obama and congress is extremely liberal. Whether that is right doesn't matter - it's the perception.

And as we've seen throughout the history of this country, generally Americans pull back when they think one party is too liberal or conservative. We saw it in 2006 and we're seeing it now.

People have been fed a load of rubbish about "liberalism" over the last 30 years.

People who are considered traditional in many ways, are also liberal in basic economic values. Wages,protection of jobs, the right to healthcare, a truly competitive economy (as oppossed to corporate monopolism) etc.

Those are the things people want. If the democratic Party refuses to stand for those things -- economic progressive populism -- they become perceived as weak and corrupt.

If Democrats, as a party, shook off its centrist lethargy and actually stood for the interests of the population against the oligarchs, people would ignore labels like "liberal" and support the Democrats once again as the party that represents their interests and values.

And snap into reality.

You're living in a dream world if you think the Democratic Party's image is that of a centrist party.

:rofl:

Sometimes I weep at the knowledge many people on DU are actually interacting and living in the real world. It horrifies me, in fact!

The fallacy of ad hominem:

Person A makes claim X
Person B attacks person A
Therefore X is false

Anonymity brings out the best in some people.

When ever someone throws out an ad hominem and posts a :rofl: it reminds me of a recently TSed long term troll on this board. I wonder if he picked it up there.

If you aren't one already, there is a political party for those who think the democratic is "too far left" these days. Its symbol is an elephant.

you think the Democratic party should not be progressive.

Again. Just why are you bothering to post here.

Sometimes I weep at the lack of intellect displayed by a few here on DU who think that posting a smilie displays thought.

"laughing leads to crying"

"Because a good many of Americans think the Democratic Party has moved too far to the left! "

Case in point, this is EXACTLY what Im talking about.

:)

Wow!

Your side never says what you stand for. How do you differ from the left? come on tell us.

People on the "left" are "perceiving" that Obama and the Democrats are catering to campaign contributors and lobbyists at the expense of populist issues that matter to the people who actually get out and work for them. Whether that is right doesn't matter - it's the perception.
So, what's their plan to combat that perception?

What's their plan to combat the perception they're far-leftists?

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

No one but a die hard freeper would perceive the Dems as far left. And everybody goddamn well knows it.

Those who claim there is such a perception are goddamn liars, and everybody knows that too.

It's the excuse the Dems give whenever they don't want to keep a promise or listen to their base - which is 100% of the time nowadays.

Do you know anything at all about Massachusetts politics?

You're welcome to your opinion, of course, but please don't label such obvious nonsense as "fact."

the White House TWICE over their vehement objections somehow think that they have a monopoly on public opinion.

A country where the majority don't want universal healthcare even though it's the least that we deserve. A country that can't pass gay marriage in more than a handful of states. A country where large numbers want to round up Muslims and Hispanics and ship them "somewhere else" is somehow in the minds of some on this site, rejecting Obama/Coakley/Dems because they are not "liberal enough" shows a lack of understanding and a cluelessness that is so profound it is almost enough to make you want to cry and scream at the same time.

"A plurality disapprove of the healthcare bill because they think it's too liberal."
Exactly! That's why the polls showed overwhelming support for a public option and opposition to a mandate, especially if it came without a public option. Therefore the bill is too liberal! Wait. What?

"And as we've seen throughout the history of this country, generally Americans pull back when they think one party is too liberal or conservative"
Yeah! Stupid New Deal. Remember how everyone fought that? Wait. What?

Your "facts" smell because of where you're getting them.
Would you like a chocolate covered pretzel?

that, combined with the fact that the banksters' and corporate elites' intersests are being served, and at the expense of ordinary working and middle class Americans

believe me: i work among Dems who eagerly awaited Obama's administration; they are so disappointed and disallusioned with Obama.

Damn Straight!!!

Look at FDR...

Uh, well, no, don't look at FDR. He was just the last pResident to go along at all with what was NEEDED for the People and was ultra-liberal but then, he only got 4 terms...

Sorry, you're obviously too young to remember when the "center" was "liberal" in this country and what is laughingly called the center now was regarded as bat-shit crazy right-wing...

You might wish to go back further than 1982 in your USAmerican history...

Progressives and liberals represent the very platform of The Party.
We ARE The Party, and the "centrists" are just along for the ride.
We refuse to choose person over party.

it's the those who support the insurance bill and think that passing something with "health care" in the title is the same as actual reform.

The real die hard health care reformers are those of us who will not drop this issue if and when Obama signs this scam into law. The problem we'll have is the those who sold us out will expect us to accept the bill as reform and they won't listen, nor will they understand when we keep at them to give us access to health care, not access to "coverage".

people simply because we don't follow THE LEADER where we don't really want to go!

We can do better, but too many don't seem to "see" it! Just how I FEEL, and that feeling is here AND alive regardless of how many names are hurled at us!

the threads with the biggest number of posters are liberal progressive threads..with an enpormous number of posters..

then look at the right leaning threads..there are the same group and that is about it..and there is a shallow number of posters.

They may post more threads..but look inside and it is almost an empty box of the same bugs..if you get my drift.

The perception is there is more of them..because they post talking points and alot of threads that mostly are nonsence...anyone who thinks there are more of them??..not so..not so by a long shot..

or should i say simple minded? i would like to have a simple single payer system in this country, but it ain't gonna happen. lots of people don't want it. and lots and lots of people sure don't want to pay for it. and anybody who thinks we can get to how cheap it is in france just by instituting a government payment system doesn't understand how many things are tied up together. if you want france's system, you have to add the cost of taking over the entire educational system as well. is it still cheaper then?
do the single payer zealots get that? or get anything but single payer single payer single payer single payer single payer single payer single payer single payer? no, they don't.
simple minded, single minded, immature.

They point their finger at the progressives/liberals and say it's "ALL YOUR FAULT!"

Guess what - they are the ones at fault, and I'll be sure and point the finger at them just like I did the idjits who supported the Bush/Cheney cabal's lies that led us into endless war in the mideast. People thought I was a stupid know nothing in 2002 - guess what? They were wrong then & they are fuckin' wrong now. Take that to the damn BANK and stick it out your fuggin ear.

BTW, alienate the independents and kiss it all goodbye as well. Unfortunately, the country is simply not as liberal as some here pretend it is.

accompishments such as stimulus, Lilly Leadbetter, reduced choice restrictions, green initiatives, and MUCH more. Would you have gotten more with McCain. Please be fair.

the problem is the "centrists" who pretty much exist only in DC plus a few Clinton and/or DLC era party hacks around the country that think they learned something profound a decade and a half ago in a different world.

The "centrists" should go and clean up the riff-raff in their own party and work for corporate interests from there rather than running scared from the "southern strategy" yahoos they cultivated for a generation and now can't get a handle on them.

Obama has not fulfilled the bigger expectations people hoped for: JOBS AND HEALTHCARE.

I live in the most red-neck cental right part of the US. Guess what, a bunch and I mean a bunch of them voted for Obama. They were worried about their jobs, and they just couldn't understand why healthcare cost them 1/3 to 1/2 of their income. They may be stupid and not politically savvy in many ways, but they vote their pocket books and do understand that shit is fucked up and hoped for some sort of sanity.

The rich and the powerful always leave themselves with a fallback provision. They anticipated that Bush II's presidency was going to implode, and they knew that the markets would collapse as well. In addition, they knew that government had to bail them out, and that would cause a populist revolt.

Fortunately, they had a fallback position, conservative Dems who would block Obama's agenda. The sad thing is that Obama never challenged these Dems. Instead, he allowed Max Baucus to piss all over his presidency, and he did nothing about it.

In the end, as you posted, the populist rancor was seized upon by the Republicans. The Teabagger protests started three months after Obama took office.

You're starting to take your own arguments for granted.

Yes Obama has made some changes for the better. But the context remains the same of kowtowing to special interests and Democratic timidity to challenge conservative orthodoxy.

It's the "kinder and gentler" form of corporate conservatism that Bill Clinton embodied.

There was a HUGE hatefest in my office. The thread I posted got un-rec'ed into the ground, but it needed to be said- the Repubs are co-opting the angry middle, and people like me will probably think twice about voting. It's 2008 in reverse, and most of the people who aren't paying attention are going to be VERY surprised by the sweep that happens.

I really can't believe it. The Dems NEVER had a better moment to fix things...and they decided they liked having corp sponsorship better. We'll all be paying the price.

Not a wise move.

Those people are here to destroy DU, and any online, organized presence on the left.

for destroying the Democratic Party.

Never in my life had I ever heard "liberals" dissed by Democrats. The Left was always the "soul" of the party (since the 1960s). Now they're treated like garbage and called all kinds of names--yet then The Left is blamed when the asshole "centrist" candidates lose elections. The DLC and their corporate ass-kissers are total losers and have destroyed the chance for real change that was handed them on a silver platter in 2008. As a progressive, I will NOT take the blame for elections lost to repukes. A rightward-drifting Democratic Party is an alien institution that will become extinct.

That really says something when adding the Chief of Staff's (& first hire's) name to the President's is perceived as an insult that must never be spoken.

but it's still okay to call progressives names like "leftbaggers" and "eeyores"--gee, I always feel so loyal to a political party that treats me like shit.

Waitasecond, this isn't FAUX?


Nevermind.


(With love and respect to Gilda Radnor)

.. is that yet again, a GOLDEN opportunity to actually do something good for We the People, everyday, hardworking, loyal Democrats, has been sold out to the corporations..

And yet those that could see, if they would simply put aside their partisan blindness, still don't and won't.

Obama is setting the tone. He is the one who placed the Wall St./Clintonistas into top positions to find solutions to the problems they helped to create in the 90's. (such as financial deregulation)...he is the one who failed to put his political muscle behind a real public option/Medicare buy-in option.

Obama is the guy who fired up people (including me) with talk of change for the benefit of the people, and a change from the status quo but who, once elected, has followed the cautious, pro-corporate centrist course.

...and are either not paying attention or being disingenuous at best.

Facts matter and like this post here you're constantly stating opinion on how you feel...

Obama ignored populist anger but he also is surrounded by a party, the DNC, who could've kept the pressure on reThugs.

Many people, especially in the middle, voted "not Republican," more than "Democrat." And when a Democratic Administration supported by Democratic congressional majorities began to pursue Democratic solutions, all hell broke loose, especially among "independents," which is mostly code for politically confused white people. The Angry Left is wrong to think that 2008 was any sort of mandate for liberalism, even though a surface reading of the results might have led you to believe so.

And here's where I will be critical of Obama and the Democrats: They have failed to play rhetorical hardball against the Right and left the door wide open for unreasoning rage to fill the political vacuum. This has been a long-term problem with Democrats, who remain defensive in what they privately view as a center-right nation. How could it be anything other than center-right when you fail to consistently point out the insanity and nihilism of the other side?

Excellent column on this problem yesterday from EJ in WaPo:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/17/AR2010011701934.html

As the party in charge during the meltdown of far-right conservatism, people voted against the GOP.

But they also voted for a change in direction, which is what the Democrats claimed to stand for.

So it was not a partisan shift necessarily, but voters did hand the ball to the democrats and said "We want a change from this corrupt crony capitalism that is screwing us all."

would never have supported populist legislation like, for instance, Social Security, or Medicare; but they may well prove to be the political force that dismantles it.

They have a listening problem. Suddenly went tone-deaf.

And now, they'll probably be stupid enough to think it's because the majority is right-oriented instead of farther left than they can imagine.

A 5 and 6 year old are getting ready to go downstairs for breakfast. The 6 year old tells his brother "lets both say a nughty word to mom to see her reaction. I am going to say 'hell.'" The 5 year old replies, "okay, I will say 'ass.'" So, they go downstairs and their mom asks the 6 year old what he wants for breakfast. He says, "Uh, what the hell. I'll have Coco Crisps." His mom marches over to him and slaps him in the face. She then bends him over and spanks his bottom a few times. As he is crying, his mom yells "now get your bottom upstairs and I will let you know when you can come out of your room."

She then looks over at the 5 year old says "what do YOU want for breakfast?" He sheepishly says, "I don't know, but you can bet your sweet ass it is not Coco Crisps."

Sure, our "leaders" learned some lessons. Unfortunately, it is the WRONG lessons.

:hi:




:kick:

Maybe we need a new forum. Fantasyland. Where everything is hunky dory and all the problems were solved last November. Then they could stay in that forum and never get hurt feelings from posts like the OP that tell it straight.

If you haven't visited the BOG, you really owe it to yourself to check it out. Very interesting.

I don't find the average person even being cognizant of what "change" actually entailed - they just want things to be better than they were in 2008. Would you care to wager that if we see unemployment drop to 8% by November that we'll be seeing a much different electoral mood than the one we're seeing right now?

Most people barely know what policy is. They don't give a flying fuck about corporations, unless said corporation will give them a job. They don't give a damn about party leadership. They just want a job. That's really all there is to it. You're making this about policy because you want to, not because it's true.

Here is the lesson the democrats SHOULD learn from today: Betray the base and they don't turn out for you.

Here is the lesson they will ACTUALLY learn: We need to appeal to the center more and try and get moderate republicans to vote for the democrat.

and talk about "eeyores": defeatism before a bill is even TRIED--no case whatsoever for a public option, let alone single payer--because somehow everybody "knew" "the votes weren't there"--no need to try to fire up the masses for that -- as though We The People only REALLY wanted to make sure the poor widdle insurance companies wouldn't lose any profits. The idea that a mandated giveaway to insurance companies that nobody can afford, for a worthless "product" that is nothing more than a racket--a system of unnecessary high-paid middlemen--is somehow this big earth-shattering important "landmark" thing is a joke.

The more I think about how the Democratic Party has betrayed me, the more pissed-off I feel.
And that's NOT the way to win elections! I will be very carefully checking the credentials of all candidates from now on--as a newly registered Independent, for the first time since 1964, I'm under no obligation to toe the party line for a bunch of corporatist sell-outs whose only interest is how much of my paycheck they can give away, no strings attached.

ball big time. It's like they never won the majority at all. The vote in Mass today is a 100% reflection on Obama and the Democrat Party. I just wonder what the Democrats will do if they WIN Mass today. I'm not 100 per cent sure whether it would be better for them to win or to lose.

The less distinguishable the Democratic Party is from the Republican Party, the less of the Left it can count among its supporters.

There will be no more significant progress until:
1) The Democratic Party moves back to where it was (in the 1960s) when it was last associated with any significant social progress; or
2) The Democratic and Republicans finally merge into a "Neoconservative" Party, and a Progressive Party takes its place among the "Left."

and I completely agree with this op. I also think people are fickle and one very good deed from the administration will cover up the current situation we're in. Pacify and distract.

On a side note I've noticed a lot of the arguments around here, say against an op like this, that are sounding more like conservative clueless bitching, rather than two liberals having a discussion.

The pukes trolling this board are trying to incite and exploit, don't give in to their "asshole shit bait" and keep fighting.

-phlem

rule both major parties.

given to large banks and then watch them hand out huge bonuses when so many average Americans are struggling.

Anyone who didn't see that coming is just as dumb as a fucking post, with apologies to the post.

But things are better under Obama than they would have been under McCain or other republican.

I'm so tired of people not only criticizing the Democratic party and our President non-stop, but what bothers me even more is the sickening cheering that is going at the prospect our majority going down in flames.

Yes, criticize positions, the system, etc., but be constructive about it. You'll see most of us strong Obama supporters doing the same thing. No one is trying to stop you from expressing yourself.

I'm not just a flamethrower. Over the years on DU I have posted many threads either pointing to links with constructive ideas, thoughtful opinions about issues, political strategies, as well as offered many non-flammable opinions of my own.

Problem is, such things tend to sink like stones, while the more flamable horserace crap stays afloat.

Maybe that's just the way the world works. But please don't accuse peopel of never being constructive when they post dissident opinons.

don't contribute to the dialogue.

And if you are not one of those people, my post wasn't about you. I agree, the more flamable issues do seem to get the most attention. I've started defending Pres. Obama and the Dems more than I ever have since it seems the chorus of constant complaining is drowning out a lot of potentially useful discussion.

Posting "dissident opinions" is one thing that is welcomed and encouraged here, or at least it appears to be the case. But just complaining non-stop doesn't further anything. Why even someone even bother unless they're trying to sink the ship with their own disillusionment?

A popular pastime, especially on message boards of all stripes.

the culture of the Internet. :)

This site is an oldie but a goodie re: this topic:

http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/ideologue.htm

Rahm's never been on our side and he's done nothing to fight for workers or the poor during this administration. Rahm will always back Wall Street against Main Street when it comes down to the crunch.

The man should NEVER have been given any position of responsibility in this party.

However, the system is so brittle and decrepit that the reforms got buried in the malaise. The disaster is NOT Obama and it is NOT the Democratic Party . . . rather, it IS the senility and impotence of the American political process. Major Constitutional changes are needed, (INCLUDING the abolition of the U.S. Senate). You can put together all the damn progressives you want, but this system is meant to protect wealth -- people tend to be incoveniences in that regard. IF WE CAN'T PASS EVEN THIS WATERED DOWN VERSION OF HEALTHCARE REFORM, THEN THE TIME HAS COME FOR RADICALLY CHANGING, OR REPLACING THE CONSTITUTION.

That's the system! If Obama felt he could've gotten single payer, I think he would've tried. But as long as the system is structured the way it is, single payer, along with every other idea that could be thought to be "socialistic" will be shot down by the defenders of wealth and hierarchy.

In our culture we love to single out individuals, and talk about "responsibility" -- that, in and of itself is a petty-bourgeois obfuscation. The problem is systemic and cultural, and the requirements for solving the problem involve massive changes in our politics. Such as: proportional representation, positive human rights enumerated in the Constitution (no more "Congress shall make no law . . .) And those rights would include meaningful employment and healthcare. It's also necessary to be able fight against reactionaries -- with more than just campaign commercials.

EOM

......And they know phony "reform" when they see it.







Thanks for great post.






:hi:





:kick:

EOM

Yesterday, my husband and I had lunch with a group of friends, all of whom voted for Obama. Not one said they would vote for him again. We have problems, and ignoring them or spouting some nonsense about ponies, wanting Palin to be president, or saying Obama is playing a chess game is not going to help. We need to address the divide in the party, the sooner the better.

Well said, Armstead.

K&R :kick:

Thanks for saying it so well.

With little exception both parties are owned by the same people. Why anyone would expect anything more than what we are getting is beyond me. "We the people" is a joke.

Thanks for the thread, Armstead.

to paraphrase the opening of Slattery's People,

"The democratic party is a very bad political party, but, don't forget it. All the others are so very much worse."

Please do.

K & R !!!

:kick:

and working down the mortgage crisis which is choking the middle class.

The Democratic Party is in trouble with its voters and that should have never, ever happened.

K&R.

to Democrats than to be seen as the Democratic Tweedledum to the Republican Tweedledee? Representative democracy doesn't work here anymore. We have far too many non-representatives and not nearly enough democracy.

it has always been the conservative guy at *every* place I've worked that vents his political rage within earshot of the rest of the office during lunch break. The liberals almost *never* express their opinions forcefully, leading the uneducated majority to think that the conservative represents majority opinion. It has something to do with the undemocratic, authoritarian personalities of these conservatives that makes them think they are entitled to do this.

I love Obama, but he has been too nice this first year.

He needs to put on the gloves.

It is not his job to try to get the Dem's and everybody else to play nice with the republicans after 8 years of being abused and tortured by them. In term used by abused people. We don't want a reconciliation. We want a freakin' Divorce! We want them gone never to be seen or heard from again!

All I'm seeing is people who are mad because Democrats are spending too much money and involving the government too much. I could probably find some polls to support that.

Plus they see Democrats spreading the same crap about the deficit as the Republicans, as they spend it like drunken sailors.

Amd polls are constantly erratic and you know that. Sometimes you gotta just assimilate all of the input you get from various sources and form an opinion. You are free to form a different opinion.

So this is my opinion. Once again the Democrats have let the GOP take the upper hand in messaging and salesmanship.

I believe if the Democratic leadership had set a clear course based on some simple liberal principles, and were consistent in message and action, people would not see the government as "spending too much." That's called leadership.

populist? dems/liberals/progressives once again continue the biggest political stupidity in history by continuing to let the talk radio monopoly of 1000 radio stations determine the political flavor of america.

coakley may have run a bad campaign but most of the 'populist outrage' is based on lies and distortions that could not be sold on a widespread basis without the coordinated repetition only possible with the UNCONTESTED talk radio monopoly.

bend over for limbaugh and hannity again in 2010 if dems continue to ignore the same reason we had bush iraq and this disastrous economy.

that I can see. And that's it. He thinks he can win over with reason people that try to claim he wasn't born in America or outfit him as a jungle bunny. The politicians behind those sentiments never apologize and they will do anything to defeat him. Until he realizes this is war and declares it on THEM-he will continue to lose everything.

The Republicans need to be destroyed, not courted. That is all. Maybe some day in a very distant dream like future we can make friends with some of them-but only after they have been defeated and are crawling back to sanity. They RESPECT power and nothing else. Until we use our power we are powerless. Always capitulating to their insanity. Always apologizing. Always compromising. Always looking weak.

Right now-insanity has taken over this country. It didn't learn jack shit from eight years of Mr incompetent and Dr. torture apparently. I have had enough pretending that letting them off the hook has done jack shit for his.

could be very potent if he actually used those strengths to make the case for liberal populism, and relied on some liberal firebreathers to whip up the passion .

I think you have missed one very important point and that is the Republicans have had complete control of the message. When we had Howard Dean as DNC Chairman things went extremely well. I don't even know who the DNC Chairman is. He needs to be replaced with someone with visability. Lastly, MSM is all about gotcha politics today and the voters have bought into gotcha politics.