Why aren't Progressives calling for Emanuel's resignation

For his remarks on calling people in his own party retards.It's obvious this shit head has no regard for liberal democrats.He's got to go

That has the effect of drawing sympathy upon the attackee, even if he is an asshole.

and this was last December on his radio show.Because he predicted he would be a problem for Obama

:shrug:

n/t

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

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

who are heard, not us flesh puppets....

he needs a consequence. The right wing is mobilizing.

Not just because he considers me a "retard." More because he's a fucken arrogant prick mutherf*** bastard Neocon asshole sellout of progressivism (not that he actually had any to sell out).

of HIMSELF and other stuff! I think I KNEW Obama was going to "have" him around from the get go, but he's WORSE than I ever thought he would be!

I think I've signed several petitions or so calling him out, but a real MOVEMENT is needed, but still I don't think we'll EVER see him gone! It's really sad that he gets away with some of the same kind of crap that Rumsfeld did, such as making off the wall comments, then patting himself on the back for doing it!

Twerp, something we used to call people back when I was in high school!

Problem is, Rahm is no more hostile toward the left than his boss.

What makes you think otherwise ?

unless you have decided that the meaning of "is" is "Not".
Not saying that what he said was good or right,
but he didn't say what you are saying he did.......
and to act as though he did, doesn't make you any better than him.

are "fucking retards". Maybe no one has thought of it. But seriously you are right, he's got to go.

When the subject came up in discussion of having independent groups like MoveOn run ads against people like Ben Nelson and Blanche Lincoln on healthcare reform, he described that idea as "fucking retarded." And you know what? He'd be right, since electorally those conservative Dems could ONLY come on board with HCR if it didn't look like they were being run by liberal activists. Putting pressure on them from the left would make it impossible for them to cave without handing their opponents a weapon. Those Senators have to be gotten through quiet, private negotiation.

He can't hear us because he never gets our calls.

Check this for why: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-clemons/core-chicago-team-sinking_b_452664.html

Gee. Making oblique, pointless responses is so much fun.

What Emanuel said was correct on substance despite the unfortunate use of the word. For “progressives” to run attack ads against Centrist Democrats, many who will be in tough re-election campaigns against Republicans, shows a sever lack of foresight. You might get a bad health care reform bill with the devil you know but you get nothing with the Republican you may be helping elect. Frankly what I’ve seen from the “progressive” movement over the last dozen years or so is not so different than the far right’s Tea Party movement. They only need the signs with comical misspellings. They’d rather burn the whole house down if they can’t remodel it to their liking.

And, again, Valerie Jarrett and David Axelrod are the next targets?

is that you like Rahm, what he does, and that other than using a word you don't like, you agree with his evaluation of progressives.

See. That is what happens when you use your words.

As for Jarrett and Axelrod, I think the article speaks for itself. It seems relatively well researched and sounds like a good excuse for the sloppy and incommunicative way that the administration has lurched into the brink of failure. It has appeared to many that the administration is fairly tone deaf. As pointed out in the article, Obama and Bill Clinton share almost identical views of third way politics. But Obama tends not to have Bill's touch for making people feel as if they matter. I love his speeches, but great speeches are a campaign tactic. Conducting business means brining in all you help, not just your cronies. It means making everyone feel as if they are worth your time. Obama isn't the warmest person in the world. That's not a fault, but it can be a political liability especially when you don't learn to mask it and when you let your posse lord it over the room.

If you read the article, you will see it favors keeping Axelrod, but putting him back at what he does best which is not governing policy. Jarret's behavior, her obvious disdain for the kids at the uncool table is getting to be pretty well discussed. A leader's job is to not let your buddies screw things up when they get the big head. Rahm's problem is compounding his already sour personality with his growing sense of just how cool he is.

If I had been alive in 1948, I would have liked Harry Truman when the progressive left tried to torpedo him.
If I had been alive in 1960, I would have liked JFK when the progressive left tried to torpedo him.
I liked Jimmy Carter the progressive left tried to torpedo him in 1980
I liked Al Gore when the progressive left tried to torpedo him 2000.

Yeah, despite Emanuel's poor use of words, I agree with his evaluation.

So Jarrett and Axelrod are the next on the "progressive" hit list. I get it.

You supported exactly the people I did. Difference is that you have a msm version of what happened back in the day before you were alive and a DLC version of what happened since. I did happen to be alive then. I supported the liberal agenda of each of those men (okay, okay it was my did who was the Truman supporter.) And in those cases I defended them against the right wingers in the Democratic party that tried to light them up, against the corporate shills who worked from the inside to sabotage each man's liberal agenda. It wasn't the left wing that attacked Truman for integrating the military. It's not the progressives who are attacking Obama for trying to end DADT. It's not the left wing that told Johnson not to support equal rights, it was the conservative Democrats. It wasn't the left wing that attacked Kennedy for sending troops to Oxford. It was the central party control that feared they would lose the bigot vote.

Your heart seems in the right place. It's just your history that is a little skewed.

Read my edit.

You supported exactly the people I did. Difference is that you have a msm version of what happened back in the day before you were alive and a DLC version of what happened since.

My vision is what countless history books, biographies, and friends with first hand knowledge tell me. "Progressives" opposed Truman in '48, Kennedy in '60, Carter in '80 and Gore in 2000. Those are facts.

It wasn't the left wing that attacked Truman for integrating the military.

It was the left wing that attacked Truman for opposing communism (a fact.)

It was the left wing that opposed Kennedy for the same reason.

It was the left that opposed Carter's renomination on the floor of the DNC convention in 1980.

It was the left who spread the BS there was no difference between Gore and Bush in 2000.

Ah, the misty dew of youth covers so much. You uncountable friends and books don't really seem to be serving you well. I guess if they can't be counted, maybe you shouldn't count on them.

What versions of communism? Do you know the history of the Communist movement in America? It was the middle or the road that told Truman to leave mccarthy alone, it was too dangerous. So you supported the part of the party that told Truman to cave to mccarthy? You are proud of supporting the HUAC? You seem to be against the left wing that attacked that idea.

Please name the left wing members of the Democratic party that attacked Kennedy for opposing Communism. Or is that just something someone told you? You look that up and I will give you the list of right wing leaning Democrats who opposed integration. Deal?

Opposing a candidate at a convention? That's it? That's what you got for Carter? How about the jim crow Democrats who opposed his support of civil rights? You love them?

Then your last one is just the myth of the internets. That meme actually grew up since the election, not before. I was there. I campaigned for Gore and never heard any Democrats accuse him of being bush. Now we get a lot of that in the rewrite of the internets but web mythology is not what you would call fact.

So instead of rewriting history (mainly because you are so bad at it) just go ahead and say you like slow-go, you like the DLC, you like being more conservative than most Democrats. You are allowed to do so in this country and on this board. Saying that would have been much clearer than cryptically attacking an OP without really stating your position. We progressives are like the unions. We will be fighting for your rights whether you support us or not. You can skip paying the dues and still reap the benefits of a nation moving progressively forward instead of wading in a stagnant pool of complacency.

... to detract from the post's focus, go right ahead. :)

What versions of communism?

Um. Grade school stuff. President Truman's foreign policy in regards to the Soviets. So you supported Henry Wallace's run against Democrat Harry Truman based on his Soviet policy?

Please name the left wing members of the Democratic party that attacked Kennedy for opposing Communism.

The Adlai Stevenson delegation at the 1960 Democratic convention who protested Kennedy's nomination. Again, this is history. Why would you try to upend the nominee on the convention floor?

Opposing a candidate at a convention? That's it? That's what you got for Carter?

That's enough. Typically, "progressives" look for end-arounds because they can't achieve electoral success. The delegate were secure. Ted Kennedy was too far behind for a legitimate win.

Then your last one is just the myth of the internets. That meme actually grew up since the election, not before. I was there. I campaigned for Gore and never heard any Democrats accuse him of being bush.

1. I said the left, not Democrats.
2. I was there, too. All over Georgia campaigning for Gore. I saw the bile hurled at him by progressives first hand.
3. Michael Moore and Molly Ivans nationally, for example.

No myths. :)

Now it is easier to understand.

As I said embrace your inner DLC. Finding moments from history to back you up is easy. If you do it I have to support Henry Wallace. If I do it you have to embrace joe mccarthy. All that proves nothing. One element of a life in politics is only one element. I am sorry I got into that little snit-fit of history with you. Mine were no more valid than yours.

The point is that you refuse to embrace the DLC. You feel you have to defend your centrism with "historical" data.

Me. I'm a yellow-dog Democrat. I campaigned all over Texas for Al Gore. The Democrats here that were after him were the DINOs left over from before the great flight of Texas old guard Democrats. They favored more conservative candidates and candidates who didn't go around wanting all that change.

So I don't mind being called a progressive. Why do you flee from being called a centrist?

You said there were no Democrats (the term I used was "progressives") who said Gore and Bush were the same before the 2000. I gave you two who had pretty big platforms to do it from. :shrug: Has nothing to do with how I feel about Molly Ivans. You're grasping now.

As I said embrace your inner DLC.

A statement that has nothing to do with the topic of discussion. Having problems staying on topic?

Finding moments from history to back you up is easy.

So finding facts from history to support my statements is "embracing my inner DLC?" These moments in history were pretty big moments, by the way.

The point is that you refuse to embrace the DLC.

LOL. Dude. Look at my avatar and sig line.

You feel you have to defend your centrism with "historical" data.

There you go crapping all over history again.

Why do you flee from being called a centrist?

LOL. Dude. Look at my avatar and sig line. LOL.

I don't blame you from running away from an attack on Molly. Could really mess up your rep.

.. before election 2000. Did Molly say they were before election 2000. Isn't it a fact? Yes it it. Why would you call pointing out a fact that discredits a statement of yours an "attack?"

You said you agreed with Rahm's sentiment, if not his wording, when he called progressives fucking retards. Then you labeled Molly Ivins as a progressive which is a term she would readily claim is correct. Hence, your own convolutions have you calling Molly out. It does explain where you are coming from. Me. I love Molly. Please go to some of the coverage of the time to see what Molly meant by her protestations. You would be more than a little surprised if you really knew her.

The real problem here is not that you have a problem with progressive ideals. I don't accuse you (or even Rahm) of supporting mindless war, segregation, inequality, and oppression of the poor. You actually seem to support the progressive agenda that would be against those things, those republican ideals. Somehow you have fallen for the DLC meme that it is progressives that are the enemy, not neocons or republicans. So you chirp the neocon line that progressives are to blame for all the ills of the country. I don't get it. Why would you support the point of view that Democratic presidents should be less progressive, less liberal, less in favor of people instead of corporations?

So you like Rahm. You like an insular administration. Find a better term for people who disagree, people who don't like Rahm and would like a more open method of governing. Instead of attacking the concept of progressive politics by linking it to radicals and anarchists.

All this tussle goes back to your agreeing with Rahm. My feeling is that he is pissed at being called out and lashed out. Even he doesn't want to turn the Democratic party into the anti-progressive party. Call us ultra radicals or wild-eyed idealists, but it is a silly and unproductive snit that would have the Democratic party denigrate a worthy adjective like progressive.

You said you agreed with Rahm's sentiment, if not his wording, when he called progressives fucking retards.

No, I said I agreed with Rahm's sentiment, if not his wording, when he said what progressives were doing is "fucking retarded."

Then you labeled Molly Ivins as a progressive which is a term she would readily claim is correct.

Ok, yep, I agree.

Hence, your own convolutions have you calling Molly out.

Oh, you mean using Molly's own words as an example of doing something you said no one did. :)

The real problem here is not that you have a problem with progressive ideals.

The real problem is I have a problem with progressives who cut off their nose to spite their face, deny basic high school history, claim things didn't happen that, in fact, did, then try to run, twist, and pout when called on it all.

You actually seem to support the progressive agenda but just two lines before that... The real problem here is not that you have a problem with progressive ideals. :shrug:

and avoiding the big.

Yep. Molly is a Democrat who found similarities between Gore's presidential run and the policies of bush. I guess you won't give her the same pass for language parsing that you claim a right to in your first two lines. So, that is one. One. One little point that you win although you have to play with all the words in all the posts to get that I said no one ever did whatever the little off the topic point you want to make.

I don't mind doing this all night. Every time you burp out another round of menial nit picking as a response, it kicks the OP to the top again. No one, but no one, is reading this deep into this sub thread unless they are really desperate or a full blown insomniac. But I like that you keep kicking the OP back up is a good thing.

So keep it up. Keep avoiding actually saying what you stand for or mean by hiding behind pronouns and clauses. Go ahead and hide behind a convoluted evasion of your position about Rahm's statement.

I know I'm keeping you from snarking on other threads, but you last sentence and your little smilie don't make any sense. How is saying that you seem to support a progressive agenda a confusing mix with saying that you don't have problems with progressive ideals? Dude. Those lines both say the same thing. I guess when you go trying to defend a defenseless position you are bound to fumble.

Let's pick a few more nits. The OP needs another kick.

You: No progressive said Bush and Gore are the same before the election in 2000. That's an internet myth
Me: Molly Ivins did
You: You're attacking Molly!!!
Me: I'm stating a fact that contradicts your statement.
You: I'll just ignore this exchange and pretend it never happened.

Great Moments From You In This Thread

"Finding moments from history to back you up is easy."
"You feel you have to defend your centrism with historical data."
"Why do you flee from being called a centrist?"

----

The only question that remains at this point is why are you denying point in history happened?

Thanks for the kick.

Here is text from the OP: "It's obvious this shit head has no regard for liberal democrats."

You read the OP again. Liberal Democrats are pissed at Rahm for his insensitive remarks that give away his disdain for progressive ideals.

Thanks for the kick.

"progressives" have BEEN pissed off at Rahm for many reasons. The OP isn't about him "turning against" progressives. That supposedly happened long ago.

when the nit picker is backed into a corner. Now we know.

Thanks for the kick.

when you're backed into a corner? I won't answer now because there are more facts you'll be ignoring. Snicker.

Oh, a kick for a thread that has how many un-recs? LOL!

Was in the positives yesterday. Guess you got the "chine" going. Congrats.

Tell us you're hoping to just sound more intelligent and experienced.

The Progressive Left have been a thorn in Democrats' sides since at least the 1930s. When Democrats lost dozens of House Seats in one mid-term election Roosevelt expressed thankfulness that number also wiped out non Democratic liberals as well. When Truman barely won in 1948, he said he was glad to have won without the leftwing of the party who broke for Wallace. Progressives accused Kennedy of trying to out muscle Ike on foreign policy and tried to get Stephenson nominated for a third time after it was pretty clear Kennedy was the nominee. Ted Kennedy had no chance of winning the nomination in 1980 but still tried to get delegates to change their minds at the convention. And of course progressive spread the word that Gore and Bush were just alike before the election of 2000. Seriously.

Your versions are similar to the ones we just heard. Yep there are far elements of each party. What we have here are centrists like you and your buddy that are trying to make the term progressive into a pejorative term. Those elements of the Democratic party that are not progressive are parts that resemble the main stream republican party.

Progressives favor civil rights. It was the progressive wing of the party that fought for every bit of progress made here.
Progressives favor women's rights. It is not the right wing of the party that pushes for equal pay and choice.
Progressives favor a progressive tax and fought against bush's tax cut for the wealthy. Centrist members of the party voted with bush.

I think that is the key element here. Centrists vote with the republicans more than the progressives. But you and you buddy want to tie today's progressives to the anarchists and radicals of another era. Nice try. Any of the presidents you name as being opposed by those you call progressives are only held in high regard by Democrats because of their progressive actions. We don't hear them being praised for being slow and methodical plodders who managed to avoid angering republicans with their carefully crafted, semi-right wing accomplishments.

Do you also think of Molly Ivins as a member of the vile and hated group that tries to ruin the Democratic party? Your buddy does. That says a lot. It really does. So who are your heroes. Lieberman? Baucus?

In a nationally published article, she denounced Al Gore and threw her support to Ralph Nader, declaring Bush and Gore essentially the same.

My versions are similar to the ones we just read because they are absolutely a fact.

They just need to look at how eliminating much of the moderate wing of the Republicans led to them quickly losing a pretty big majority. The fact is in the Senate that where 60 is a flaky number as it really refers to the number of being willing to vote with us, 50 is real. Whoever has the majority sets the agenda. As frustrating as it could be to lose on healthcare, it was harder to lose on the bankruptcy bill - in the former case, we are not getting something we want - in the latter laws are passing that make things worse.

and FT Washington Bureau chief Edward Luce ... I have to laugh at this quadrennial (or octennial) complaint from Washington insiders about the yokels from (name the president's home state) who are botching up the White House.
Bill Clinton's WH staff and senior advisors in his early years contained many Arkansans (Mack Maclarty, Vince Foster, et al.)--I'm sure you remember the great press they got. Jimmy Carter brought up all those hillbillies from Georgia like Hamilton Jordan, who didn't hit the cocktail circuit with sufficient savoir-faire. George Bush stacked his staff with people from Texas (Rove, Hughes, et al.)--well, somehow the media didn't complain about anything W. did.

I'm sorry, Washington big boys: big fucking deal. These men and women are from, GASP, Chicago. Get over it. We hear this every time a president comes to Washington. Well, we hear it if they are Democrats. Their staffs are know-nothings from the sticks who are doing great disservice to the President. Really, if I do say so myself, that's kind of fucking retarded.

But NOBODY'S LISTENING!!!

excuses for him.

zalinda

and he's trying really hard.

People have been calling for his resignation since....um....January 22, 2009.

...and, while I wouldn't have used those words, I agree with him.

just before the Iowa caucus in 2004.

Apparently running ads against actual Democrats is OK with him. Just not DLC'ers or Blue Balled Cowards.

Americans for Jobs, Healthcare, and Progressive Values - ignoring that they were clearly ANTI-DLC. They opposed DLC trade policy.

Given the timing - early December, 2003 - their goal was obvious. To get Dick Gephardt, who was NOT DLC as the nominee, instead of Howard Dean, who was DLC. When the ads were planned, Gephardt, Clark and Lieberman were the next tier of opponents.

Here is a DEAN supporter's write up of them - http://www.progressivevalues.com/default.asp?ID=2

"Timing: The first spot, on Dean's NRA endorsements, ran Dec. 5-12 in Iowa. The second ad ran Dec. 12-19 in Iowa and hit Dean on his NRA backing and NAFTA and Medicare stands. By this time, Jones did not have much money left.
Jones could spend only about $15,000 to buy time in New Hampshire and South Carolina for an inflammatory spot that ran Dec. 13 accusing Dean of "having no military or foreign experience" with a shot of Osama bin Laden on the cover of Time magazine. Jones caught a break when U.S. troops captured Saddam Hussein on Dec. 14, starting a week where Dean spiraled downward. Dean said in a Dec. 15 speech that Saddam's capture "has not made America safer" -- a statement seized by Dean's rivals, which gave Jones' ad free airtime on news and talk shows. On Dec. 16, Dean campaign manager Joe Trippi handed Jones more free exposure when he sent a letter to the other Democratic candidates asking them to condemn "this despicable ad."

(As far as blaming Kerry and Clark, the only connection was a VERY few donors to the group who did it also gave to Kerry and Clark - but, there were a few donors who had given to Dean himself. With Gephardt, the connections were pretty close and made up almost all the money raised.)

Let's see the ad the DLC ran. Let's see the FEC filing that shows they paid for it.

The ad was from a labor group allied with Gephardt, but even Gephardt had nothing to do with it. Kerry criticized it almost immediately, . By crediting Bush with foreign policy credits, it hurt any Democrat running against Bush's foreign policy.

Here is the ad. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1DqOwP3Xzc The fact is that, the ONLY Democrats it could have helped were Gephardt, Edwards and Lieberman - all of whom were actively supporting Bush's wars at that point. But, as it makes no case for Bush's policies, it likely moved no one.

The ad was pulled after running for 5 days (or one day per a second source) in December 2003 in just NH and SC. If anything, it was part of what hurt the Gephardt campaign because it backfired badly. I think that ad was awful. It was fair to say that Dean had no foreign policy experience - just as it was fair for Dean to say that all the Senators and Congressmen who opposed him had no executive experience. It was NOT good for a Democratic group to imply that Bush's foreign policy was better than a Democratic alternative.

But, this ad likely did not hurt Dean in Iowa. For the ad to have any traction, you have to not react by thinking "are you crazy" when it credits Bush on foreign policy. Anyone who believed in the Iraq War as a part of the war on Terror was already not for Dean - and they were not going to be.

(because it is interesting - here is a nice DU thread on it at the time it was happening. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x896077
They did a nice job looking at who was behind it - and the felling I get is that it very likely became something used against Gephardt in Iowa. It is interesting that Gibbs was involved - He had been a Kerry spokesman, but left when Kerry fired Jim Jordan and Kerry never rehired him even in the general election. )

Since Gephardt had not been associated with the DLC for years at that point, and since the DLC's relationship with labor has always been, until recently, strained - there is no case to be made it was a DLC ad (unless, of course, one's definition of DLC is "any entity that disses Dean."

on your post. It is easier to argue that this was an ANTI-DLC group. This ad was almost an afterthought - run in NH and SC for one day - when the group was down to about $15,000.

Their big ad buys were - running an ad on Dean being pro-NRA from Dec. 5-12 in Iowa and an ad on Dean's (DLC)position on NAFTA, his NRA standing, and that Dean favored cuts in Medicare spending Republicans had proposed in the mid-1990s. http://www.progressivevalues.com/default.asp?ID=2

Now, if the target was not Dean, it looks like the people doing this were ...... the progressives.

fucking retarded to run the ads but you are absolutely correct in that what he called fucking retarded was the strategy.

That progressive Democrats who wanted to run ads against more conservative democrats were effin' retarded. Cuz Rahm wanted to get as many Dems in office as he could, so he found some that would be more palatable in conservative parts of the US. And guess what? It did work.

However, I totally disagree with that strategy, and I believe the chickens have come home to roost re health care and the fact that so many Blue Dogs are in trouble in said regions of the country. But can I tell you, I was totally chastised by Rahm's site on Facebook when I DARED to question why "the Enforcer" came after progressives more than he did Repigs who wanna thwart us all!! They actually wrote me back, explaining the circumstances and asking me: "Are you saying it's okay to run ads against fellow Dems?"

Listen, I've defended Rahm, even though I've been a little worried about his centrist politics. I think he's totally sincere and passionate in his beliefs, and he wears his heart on his sleeve. I also love that he sets so many closed-sphinctered Anglo gentiles running for the smelling salts! But he needs to go after the real enemy, not give tsuris to progressives!

than calling for the White House Chief of Staff to be fired because he's abrasive?

but not for some imaginary insult to liberal groups. He is a corporate whore, plain and simple, and has no business anywhere near Democratic power. :shrug:

...and you have to wonder how much of an asshole his boss is for hiring him in the first place.

and primary them. Now, agree or disagree, he was calling an ACTION retarded, not the PEOPLE doing it. Now, I think he should not have used retarded - when what he meant was that the action was stupid or counterproductive.

Here, you are playing with the language just as Sarah Palin did.

I dislike Rahm and his language has been a problem before, but he did not call any group of people "retards".

There is absolutely no need to drag developmentally disabled people into this, they were not those whom he was assaulting.

I do wish he was let go though; same applies to Geithner. That's not likely to happen though, unfortunately. :(

A couple of hours ago some guy was saying that Obama's cabinet is not popular and was more or less predicting that Rahm, Axlerod and Jarrett are going to be leaving - something about they are too much of tacticians.

Can't wait...

When I voted for this President I place my trust in him to make appointments at his discretion. If I dislike his appointments enough I will vote for somebody else next time.

Rahm is a dumbass in this little situation because he essentially said that the desire for democracy and the will of the rank and file to be a significant factor is a sign of developmental issues.

That's fucking retarded! What other response should people have when their principles and values aren't being respected, other than pressure and the primary system? Shut the fuck up and like whatever you get isn't democracy or public service.

He'd defending his brother's privatization scam not playing smart politics. That's some of the essential problem with the right wing of the party, they have no understanding they are there to do the people's business or that the people are supposed to have a say.

The man is insanely overrated as a political operative. He's only effective at bullying his own party and has the same economic goals as the GOP, which means that he is worthless as a Democrat.

explained what Rahm said accurately in private. I'd say leave party "purity" to Republicans. Democrats need to compromise and work together. Our goals can be accomplished and we need to be shrewd as well as balanced.

Would be nice to hear him apologize for using the r-word before he leaves.

...that's kind of the point.

Think about this, people do unpopular things from time to time, it's a part of life. It is something we cringe at, and hope it is a learning experience for the individual...but calling for political crucifixion is really pretty ridiculous. Besides, it's not our decision to make, if PO wants to keep him on, so be it.

I don't know about others here, but I am not about to call for a resignation because of a slight and the use of a word that is considered offensive, that goes into some remarkable territory...should every cabinet member resign after a silly/stupid remark? That would put a revolving door that spun at light speed into the process.

The man apologized, I'm decent enough to accept that and let things move on. I'm not so petty as to allow something like this to tear apart the administration.

But the party isn't controlled by the left. That should be obvious to everybody by now.

It is just meaningless. Now if the BANKSTERS were calling for his resignation, then things would happen.