I will post this 1000 times, if needed......

There is nothing of "purity" in what I want from Obama (and Democrats in general)!

I need the policies that will stop the slide into poverty for my family and friends.

I am only asking for: what we used to have in this country. Not asking for anything new. Nothing. Not a thing.

I am asking Obama to merely step away from radical Right Wing policies. I want the dis-mantling of the social safety net to cease.

Stepping back from radicalism isn't ideological purity. I am not asking him to get body piercings, ride a Vespa or invite Iggy Pop to the White House.

And the casual, and continual tossing of the "P" word most likely just demonstrates that some here at DU are living in a more privileged America than I am. What's "pure" is the destruction of my blue-collar world.

Some still have the luxury of seeing (the already completed) destruction of that world and the (continuing) destruction of the middle-class as interesting little details in the Grand Game of political sport..

But it may just be a matter of time before y'all are kicked out of your cubicles and join my desperate friends in the endless lines at the Job Center.

Please stop attacking those who are suffering! You don't tri-angulate with destruction and ruin!

jobs to support your pension that SHOULD HAVE SUPPORTED YOU JUST FINE and see how fast the view ahead becomes clear. well said.

hell, I don't even have a pension available, and Social Security will be killed before I retire. I really feel for those younger than I- we are racing back toward the Gilded Age.

Social Security will not be "killed" before you retire, friend.

Just look what happened when the GOP tried to float the "privatize Medicare" idea. The people slapped them down so hard that they're still backpedaling.

Social Security is the most popular program ever passed by the US government. It's not going anywhere unless the GOP manage to completely destroy the nation. Now that's a distinct possibility, but I doubt very much that it will happen by the time you retire.

Just make sure that the next president is a Democrat so we can get the next couple of Supreme Court nominations. Swallow every single one of your complaints about Obama and do everything you can to get him re-elected. If one of the crazies from the GOP becomes president, there will be a 6-3 or 7-2 right-wing slant on the Supreme Court and things are going to get a lot worse.

I'm as disappointed and angry at Obama as anyone here. But I'm going to work my ass off to see that he's re-elected because the alternative is complete ruin for you, for me, and for my daughter. I won't accept that. Everything else has gone to shit, but we need those couple of Supreme Court nominations or you might as well close up shop, take down this website and every other progressive website, and start stacking cans of food in your cellar.

It certainly to fuck is!

unemployed - taking early social security at lowered benefits - medicare vouchers forcing difficult medical choices. I have seen the future and it's heart-breaking.

They say a country can be judged by the way it treats its elderly and its children. The United States should be judged harshly if it cuts education, WIC programs, Medicare, Social Security, and food and environmental protection.

Even the smallest mice will attack when he is cornered and have no other way to defend himself.

;-)

They are focused like a laser beam on the wealthy with a little spillover for the "middle class", the poor are totally off the radar screen.

And by "P word" I assume you mean "Pony".. :evilgrin:

:hi:

I didn't mean "Pony" - but might as well have!:fistbump:

Many here will kick, scream, and fight to force everyone to blindly fawn over Obama and his mishandled policy choices.

As far as politicians go, they never cared about us. During the campaign they may say a good word or two towards us, but they only care about one thing, securing their place at/with the top.

that if they just keep swimming they'll be fine. but we are all susceptible no matter how fast and how hard we swim. All it takes is one illness or to get laid off. How many of us could withstand that?

and my beer drinking reflects it. I am scared for myself, but even moreso for my grandchildren. Maybe it won't be so bad for them- they have no idea what this country used to be.

I would rather be with a man like my husband who knows how to fix things and has street smarts than a rich man. one can lose the money, but not the street smarts my hubby has. i wouldn't trade him for the world. and he has been helping me.

were purposefully written up somewhere down in DC where they do not not want to hear from the teeming masses, ('ponies' 'single issues voters' etc. etc. no need to list them, everyone recognizes them,) that person has zero credibility and probably should by now know that tossing them out hoping they will accomplish something, is a delusional thought. They have the exact opposite effect to what they are apparently intended to have.

And they are so very old! What I would like to know is, the mindset of those who sat around thinking them up. It certainly shows such individuals have an incredible disdain for the American people and believe for some reason that they people shoulk just shut up and let THEM take care of things. We did that and look what they have dont to this country. So they better get used to hearing from their bosses. Sometimes they forget who is the boss and who is the employee.

Well said, and do post it as often as it is needed.

:kick: and rec'd

I know just what you mean: the key phrases and all....

...but those who toss these pre-fab phrases around seem able to be here at DU 24/7.

The thread-cloggers. The nit-pickers. The haranguers. Such firepower aimed at fellow Democrats!

I left DU for nearly a year (occasional, limited peeks) once I was assured that I was hated by a couple of these people. The Mods cleaned that up real quick - but not before I said "Screw it! I have real emergencies on my hands without being hated on DU".

I'm back a year later and the bashers are possibly more present than ever.

I bet there are more like me who have "hung up the phone".

:patriot:


The Democratic Party is a BIG TENT, but there is NO ROOM for those
who advance the agenda of THE RICH (Corporate Owners) at the EXPENSE of LABOR and the POOR.

And you are so right, they jump on anything remotely progressive, i.e, critical of any administration policy or action, IMMEDIATELY with the unrec's - to keep a thread from making it to the greatest page. If the thread survives the unrecs, then they come in with all guns blazing with canned spin, and/or really horrible short and snarky responses - usually involving obscenities & personal attacks on posters. I once posted a reply asking someone to say what they had to say but stop using three particularly offensive and obscene terms, as they had repeatedly done in that thread, and my very short, very polite post, ending with "thanking you in advance for your consideration" was deleted. But their obscenities were allowed to remain.

Newspaper blogs don't allow that kind of language & neither does Huffington Post - and people there are still able to express strong opinions.

The lists of Obama's 'accomplishments'. How many times is this list posted as proof, that those of us who are barely keeping a roof over their heads are wrong. We don't like that he negotiates from the center, out comes the list. We don't like that we can't afford health care, out comes the list.

zalinda

posts a list, 95% of it is something Obama is "gonna" do. Or some plan he's made, or a commission he's appointed.

Here's a case in point: One of the recent lists included "repeal of DADT". Well, technically, Pres. Obama signed the repeal on Dec. 20, 2010 IIRC. I would like to know what that really means. Can someone who is gay and in the military today, stand up and say they're gay? If not, why not? Because we're 6 mos. down the road and the US military is STILL in process of surveying, polling, training, blah blah. How can this be? We can go to war at the drop of a hat, and those who don't like it can just STFU and get with the program.

Doesn't anyone see that this just makes a mockery of Obama's signing the repeal?

I'm a senior citizen and much too old to be bullied into taking a stance on something when I can see with my own two eyes what the facts are. By his own actions Pres. Obama shows that he is not interested in those of us who are struggling to make it, day by day.

These people (also known as trolls) are instantly recognizable, and I have many of them on my ignore list. Probably not enough of them, though.

di$ruptors. They are getting paid by the post; by the phone call to do just that - disrupt and divide.

You know, as if your personal survival or that of anyone like you had any significance to the People who Matter.

:rofl:

If House Repukes won't vote on a debt-limit bill, it will be their fault.

you get scolded for not being supportive of the President's policies.

In the Asian, African and Latin American countries, well over 500 million people are living in what the World Bank has called "absolute poverty"

Every year 15 million children die of hunger

For the price of one missile, a school full of hungry children could eat lunch every day for 5 years

Throughout the 1990's more than 100 million children will die from illness and starvation. Those 100 million deaths could be prevented for the price of ten Stealth bombers, or what the world spends on its military in two days!

One out of every eight children under the age of twelve in the U.S. goes to bed hungry every night. The Sec. of Agriculture said last week that number is 10,000,000 American children under the age of six are hungry every day, yet the US spends almost 2 billion dollars every day on it's wars. Where is the shame?

Half of all children under five years of age in South Asia and one third of those in sub-Saharan Africa are malnourished.

although inviting Iggy Pop would be pretty cool.

"I am only asking for: what we used to have in this country."

That's what the "conservatives" SAY they want. To go back to the way things used to be. To return to the status quo ante. To preserve what is good.

It's just interesting that, according to that definition, WE are now the conservatives.

Wanting to preserve the few gains liberals have managed to achieve is in no way being "conservative".

It turns out that THEY are now the radicals.

...the entire modern "conservative movement" is an alliance between the ideological radicals and those who make boatloads of money by aiding it.

reacquaint yourself with the word reactionary and its relation to radical
heroes of legend lose their ability to fight unhindered or recognize their enemies because of corruption and confusion
thinking maybe this is that and that is something else and everything is moveable and relative
be steadfast, gawain
remember that the purity in your heart is the source of your strength

....but do you want to be a "preservative" or a "conservative", in the sense the poster intended it.

at all. They favor regressive policies, the abolition of Social Security, fewer regulations on polluters and other who pose hazards to the environment or who would spoil the quality of life for others. They want the rule of money, not the rule of the law.

They are willing to let others die in pain and in need of healthcare just so they can save a few pennies.

I will never forget attending a meeting with my congressman and having to listen to Teabaggers scream about how they didn't want to have to pay for the health care of other people.

And the specific Teabaggers that I met up with looked impoverished. Their reasoning was unclear to me. The only motivation I could figure out for their hatred of the poor (since they did not appear to be very prosperous themselves) was that they watch a lot of Fox News.

They listen to Limbaugh every day. And worst of all, they believe every word.

... WAS progress.

Wishing for a return to progress is not the same thing as being conservative.

==================================

Or let it all be lost?

If so, then you are a conservative progressive.

... are progressive conservatives.

:eyes:

You're not gonna make much headway here arguing semantics. For the most part, I think you mean "preserve" NOT conserve. It actually captures more accurately what many progressives are seeking to do, and demonstrates how your "conservative" angle is just a semantic twist. Not to mention that the political meaning of "conservative" is not as directly tied to the normal definition of "conserve" as you perhaps think it is.

Anyhow, it's not that such progress must be "conserved" or "preserved" at this point, so much as much of must actually be "regained."

And for that matter, when a football team gets pushed back across the field, and then they get the ball and try regain the ground they've lost, I do NOT think to myself, "Wow, they are playing such a conservative game." LOL


============================

the gains.

Worst misrepresentation that I've seen of an OP on this site, and I've seen a lot. Go back to your campaigning.

you feel better, have at it. Whatever gets you through the night.

although I am thoroughly liberal.

So according to your logic then...

Does that mean that conservatism means that we should go backwards to a higher tax rate on the wealthy, and go backwards to a time before the telecommunications act when equal time for dissenting opinions was allowed? Would going backwards to a time when protections for labor and organizing were stronger?

Spare me the BS and argue honestly.

Conservatives used to be against "foreign entanglements". Yesterday's conservatives would certainly be hugely opposed to corporate subsidies. And of course 'conservatives' used to be very opposed to military spending.

delivered...but positions and definitions have changed so radically that the old labels are almost meaningless now.

now anyway.

:)

:woohoo: :yourock: :applause:

K & R

P.S. You ARE wearing your hazmat suit, right? Make way for the Booster Club.

Right now I'm lucky enough to still have my job. I realize that could change at any minute.

NOW, all we have to do is make the politicians do it.

If you post this 1000 times,
I will K&R it 1000 times,
because this USED to be a mainstream value of the old Democratic Party.


How far we have fallen. :cry:

We have sunk like a rock.

when rw political violence came out into the open --

Both political parties have been overtaken by corporations who pre-own

and pre-bribe our candidates and elected officials --

We've known this for more than 40 years --

If there are any differences between the parties, they are fading faster and faster --

in fact, to the shock of DU'ers!!


We have had the Koch Bros./DLC harbored within the Democratic Party for more than 20 yeas --

Did any of our elected Democrats ever mention that?

Bill Clinton brought the Koch Bros DLC into the Dem Party because he felt the unions

didn't have enough money to fund the kind of presidential campaign he wanted to run!

Clinton and Gore co-founded the Koch/DLC --

Koch Bros/DLC FUNDED the DLC and used it to infiltrate the party and influence its agenda

and its candidates ....

In other words, Clinton was our first Koch/DLC president --

and Gore would have been the second --



Nothing is going to change until we understand what we are fighting -- !!

This could very well be the truth.

hasn't been invited:) Seriously, I agree totally.

affluent bubble.

Like almost every single elected representative. You know, those willing to put medicare and social security 'on the table'.

cutting social programs, allowing companies to hire foreign workers to take advantage of low wages.... you think this shit isn't radical or right wing.... whatever buddy.

Refusing to extend the tax cuts meant no extension of unemployment, which would help how? the immigration laws do not allow foreign workers to work for low wages, but they've been in place for decades.

The choice presented to voters was a lie constructed to make fraud look like a good deal.

It's like when you go in the store and the salesman says before you have expressed any interest in some way overpriced product, "Would you like that delivered or do you want to take it with you now. We only have this one item left."

That item is probably not the "last one left," and you are being rushed into a decision. If the decision were all that wise, if the product were all that great, the salesperson would not be so anxious to rope you into the purchase.

That's the kind of rush sale that was done on the bail-out. Hank Paulson commandeered it.

A better solution than bailing out the banks would have been to assist balance some help for investors with help for overburdened homeowners. It was just insane to set off the fire sale on housing.

The whole crisis could have been avoided. Paulson and Greenspan set that scam up, in my opinion. History will show what really happened.

Ordinary Americans did not create the derivative market, and that is what brought us down. Many of the homeowners who lost their jobs and homes would have been in good shape had the housing market not been encourage to rise to such exuberant levels by the Bush administration's credit policies.

I have difficulty believing that the housing crisis and the banking crisis were merely the results of "mistakes." We have better economists with better computers than that.

Yes, Wall Street should have paid for more of their folly than they did.

And where are the investigations and the prosecutions?

Obama was going to renegotiate NAFTA. Now he is pushing new trade deals. WTF?

well said.

Frankly as a goal, purity is a bad idea. Diversity in opinion, genetics, tastes, skills culture etc. etc. make us stronger. Everyone knows that the best dogs are mutts. No one here is insisting that Obama be as sparkling clean as a glacial stream. But we do wish he would stop playing in the sewer with the rats and cockroaches and then hosing off his shoes and calling it a compromise.

:thumbsup:

Sorry, asking for policies that will stop the slide into poverty IS asking for purity. It isn't just asking him to step away from radical right wing policies. The policies that will save everyone's butts spring straight from the true left-wing platform. There's nothing wrong with admitting that, and calling for Obama to stand for what the party has been about on paper and for decades past. Paul Wellstone understood that. John Conyers understands that. Dennis Kucinich understands that. You can't get away from it, so use the P-word proudly.

.. then I am "Entitled" to EVERY LAST PENNY I HAVE PAID IN my entire working life!!!!!

I am a "P".. I want it all.

I want fair pay for a day of back-breaking work. I want affordable health care. I want the U.S. out of wars of Choice. I want our CONgress to stand up for someone other than the big Banks and Insurance companies.

I am SOOOO radical.. right?

I wish I could hear this repeated a thousand times by the talking heads

that are old and/or smart enough to know what's going on.

Most of us here are far from purity reactionaries. Most of us like some things and dislike some things.

Simply because I've realized I'm going to need to save money to retire on, because the way things are looking SS and Medi-care might both be dismantled in the new few decades. I was hoping this country would follow the path of the democratic socialist countries of Europe, but we seem determined to follow disaster capitalism to our ruin.

How can you save money to retire on when the health insurance industry will just take everything you have?

There are certainly no guarantees with monsters like this on the loose.

You are not alone I'm with you I'm in the same boat.:nuke:

There is no such dismantling going on, though there would be with a Repub Congress and president (though even then, it doesn't really seem to work out, since Bush had a Republican congress for six years).

It is very interesting watching the debate unfold. Social Security is not one of the biggest drivers of the deficit. The biggest driver is the loss of revenue from the Bush* tax cuts. The second biggest driver is the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The third biggest driver is the economy itself. The fourth driver is "all else" including but not limited to the cost of medicare, medicaid and unemployment.

Social Security itself has 2.5 trillion in surplus invested in the U.S. Treasury Notes. This surplus was accumulated as a result of the early 80s reform. Everyone knew when the baby boomers started to retire, it would put a huge strain on the system. To offset that, deductibles from participants rose as well as the retirement age. Now that the day is here when that surplus is needed (and has been accumulated) to weather the storm, what do some politicians want to do? They want to convince us the system is broken, and some would even go so far as to "default" on what is due those very same people who have saved extra funds just for this day. Why? Because they have spent that money on wars and other things and if the debt is in fact redeemed, the U.S. Government must find substitute buyers for those notes, which is not easy to do in this economy. It is just easier to tell the Country the system is broken and speak of shared sacrifice. Republicans themselves are seeing an opportunity to do exactly what they have wanted to do since Social Security and Medicare were put in place -- privatize it for the benefit of private corporations and to the detriment of its own citizens. Simply repealing the Bush* tax cuts, stimulating the job market and increasing the revenues flowing into the treasury, combined with other maneuvers such as getting out of Iraq and Afghanistan (the second driver of the deficit), putting competition into the health care market (for instance, reconsidering a public option) would help tremendously. Oh, yes, and repeal those subsidies for Big Oil.

It is grossly unfair (and that is an understatement) to expect the middle class as well as the impoverished to "share the sacrifice" while the big banks and Wall Street, both of which edged this economy into this extremely deep recession, are experiencing huge profits and taking home outrageously large bonuses and making zero sacrifice. Teachers, firemen, state workers and many others of us with depleted retirement funds are looking at working until we die while many, many others have lost their homes or live in fear that lies ahead. The only monies left to take are those in Social Security and the benefits of Medicare and Medicaid. Now they are coming after that.

As I wrote in a separate thread not to long ago, the Economic Hit Men are now among US.

Sam

You have summed up our ugly circumstances beautifully

EVER HAVE IMAGINED! I can no longer defend him when talking with far too many people! Almost ALL my family nd friends who are Democrats seem to feel exactly the same way.

And yes, we WILL have to vote for him or get something even MORE right wing! It's such a disappointment! Far too sad that so many in Democrats in D.C. have turned to the right also! WIMPS without a spine.

And "we the people" feel so much apathy, but we are also unable to fight back because of it! I can't even get 20 people together in one room to try an fight back! It sickens me.

as an obligation that the US must fulfill. At least that's been his policy so far since he won the election. It seems to be his guiding philosophy of America and it's role in the world.

When is NAFTA going to be re-negotiated as the President promised? Why are we doubling down on a failed trade policy by pursuing new agreements with Panama, Columbia and Korea?

One of the canned terms we often hear is "incrementalism" and how it's the only way to make progress. In trade policy we're making progress all right but it's going in the wrong direction with the blessing of the President. These are the policies that are gradually killing off the middle class and it has nothing to do with ideological purity. IMO this is the single most important issue of the day and we need to be talking about it and recognizing the problem as a party if we hope to get any traction in the next election.

The reason he has to compromise, even on things like healthcare when we had a big majority, is because Democrats in general, and this country in general, are very conservative.

I have no doubt that Obama would pass progressive policies if he could. But he can't. Only Congress can, and they are as conservative as ever.

I don't attack "purists", but you seem to be attacking white collar workers while pining for some blue collar world that only existed due to American global economic dominance and imperialism. Somehow I doubt all the "moderates" are in cubicles and the "purists" are all in lines at the Job Center. Indeed, many of the blue collar workers are in the Tea Party, and many of the white collar workers are thinking of writing in Nader.

Please stop attacking and steryotyping whole classes of people! You don't sound very smart when you build strawmen on generalizations, attack other DUers in a subtle way, and then act self rightous!

hands are tied. Bullshit. He is doing exactly what he is being paid to do - and he ain't working for us workers.

least of all Congress. Hell, I think that members of Congress personally are much more progressive than their voting records would indicate. But they are all, Democrat and Republican, bought and sold by corporations mainly. And their constituents are pretty conservative by and large, if not very misinformed/underinformed.

Bush had no more power than Obama in passing legislation. It helps for Republicans that the nation is 40% conservative while only 20% liberal and that their party is homogenous and walks in lockstep.

Seems we just never have enough power to get anything we want. Although the R's rammed their entire agenda down the country's throat for 8 years...even when they weren't technically in control of everything.
It's a matter of how much you want something. The R's are united in what they want...the destruction of government as we know it..and they'll stop at nothing to get it.
Our side just doesn't have their resolve.

and like Little boot's big pharma, screw the seniors bill, there were still some decent repugs who were against it. They bullied their own to pass that bill. However, it is easier to pass a bill that favors the wealthy and corporations, it is much harder to pass something that actually benefits the people or the country. It should tell us all that the corporations have the ear of Washington over the people.

and have been for a while now. No doubt that those without lobbyists are not being well-represented, but let's just say that a lot of Americans have been successfully propagandized to the point of consistently voting against their own best interests.

Check out pollingreport.com

They have an issue section and when you see the numbers broken down on key questions such as Social Security, Medicare and the Environment. The idea that we live in a fundamentally conservative nation breaks down as you read through the results. Liberal values are mainstream values but the "l word" has become untouchable and we've been running from it in an effort to convince the public how centrist and sensible we all are.

The public might be willing to vote for their own interest if only we'd actively sell a clear agenda and tell them directly how they would benefit from a pro-consumer agenda along with a tax and trade policy that actually created a good economic climate for working people.

it's just that most people are not familiar enough with political issues to understand where they are politically, much less which party would better represent them. The little information they get is pretty biased generally.

at least here in TX being republican goes along with God, country music, and all the rest ... Republicans are excellent at marketing.

The man was elected with almost UNPRECEDENTED support. He filled football stadiums full of roaring crowds! And then....he threw it all away. He hired DC insiders and Goldman Sachs flunkies and turned his back on the people, claiming impotence. He rode the Tiger of popular support and outrage to the Whitehouse, and then turned that Tiger loose. Now he and his sniveling sycophants are whining how the Tiger is out for his political blood.

He should have harnessed the Tiger as FDR did to combat the insiders and the corporations who are destroying this country. He has little power because he is too cowardly to use it.

:thumbsup:

so do many "informed DU'ers," who have their eyes wide open as to what is going on.

Oh wait. Obama is choosing to ignore that and run roughshod over congress. So, he IS powerful, but not for the will of the people?

until you realize that, your BIG WORDS and anger are useless. Hey, I understand it's nice to pretend the US populace is in the right and blame it all on a cowardly President, but I know that's not reality. Sure, I think the President has been tactically wrong on some things, and I have no problem with people criticizing him, but I realize that Obama's choices are mostly political, not ideological, and that is the game our system is set up for. I don't like it, but I don't actually think Obama is a conservative that believes in conservative policies. I believe he is a politician trying to get done what can be done.

I think I can safely say that the populace back in FDR's day was several magnitudes more progressive than today's population.

Obama didn't win a huge landslide like FDR did. And really, 53/47 isn't all that impressive, especially considering how the country had just been destroyed by the right for the last eight years and Palin was on one ticket. Really, that result just reinforces how politically conservative the US is, and makes my point.

Perhaps visit the coasts and stop watching so much TV. Conservatives have nowhere near a majority in this country. Rural areas and the South perhaps. Conservatives don't vote for "hope" and "change".

and there is no doubt to me that this country is the most conservative developed nation on Earth, at least economically. There is a reason 40% of the populace self-identifies as conservative while only 20% identify as liberal.

Aren't you tired when talking or writing your member of Congress when he or she gives you the same excuse?

Then, there's that wonderful Senate who approved those people already changing our laws on the SCOTUS. Hey, let's hear them tell us about having to have majorities and how compromise has worked for us.

Sooner or later, you are going to have to hold accountable all three branches of government. If I sound a little self-rightous, I think I deserve your consideration. I ran for local office, took a ton of shit for one year, so that I could be joined by someone running with me again the next year, and it takes a concerted effort, all the while listening and responding to your constituents, having BACK BONE and not being afraid to be chastised in pubic or WHEREVER.

It takes leadership..... REMEMBER LEADERSHIP? I remember the ones who were assassinated for their leadership leaving in their path the potential for more leaders to break through this huge wall from power and greed, be it the military industrial complex or corporate America.

That's the "Yes We Can" we thought we could believe in.

I just don't understand the OP's point in setting up a strawman about cubicle-bound moderates attacking purists who are in poverty.

In fact, "pure" is not the word I think of when the first of the middle class who have vocational technical skills (dear to my heart) are the first to feel the loss of the manufacturing industry (80's), then skilled jobs a plenty leaving automobile industry (90's) only to be cut off at the knees since the Cheney/Bush Regime days of not so long ago. Look how far we are from the point where the middle class is like a pancake.

We're on the verge, and it's wake up time. Perhaps pureness of thought about the corporatocracy around us permeates the air.

and i agree.

not give any money to. I told her that both parties are bought and paid for by corporations. No more. I guess when you get enough from the people on the right and see the bennies go away then maybe they will move.

The president can use the bully pulpit all he wants but most legislation still has to go through congress. We are in this together some of us may have specific concerns, but none of us always get exactly what we want all the time. That does not mean we should be criticized for our advocacy.

For example, my feeling about extending the tax cuts saved christmas for many of my friends who were unemployed at the time. That trade-off sucked, but it was not just about votes.

I see some efforts I like and capitulations that I dislike. But there is no way this was going to be easy for any of us.

I believe and advocate for my own personal issues, support my fellow Democrats and recognize that the only way some things are possible is with practical strategic maneuvering.

...got a few crumbs for a relatively small number of people,
but cost the rest of us $BILLIONS,
and thats not the end of it.
Do you really believe that Obama & The "Centrist" Dems are going to "Raise Taxes" in an election year?
The Tax Cuts for Billionaires are now PERMANENT.
Like Health Insurance "Reform",
we had one good opportunity to "change" things,
and THAT chance is now GONE for at least a generation.


There are ways of getting an agenda through Congress if you really want to:




Can you IMAGINE Joe Lieberman stomping his little foot, and telling LBJ,
"NO! I'm NOT going to support your Health care Plan!"

:rofl:





"If we don't fight hard enough for the things we stand for,
at some point we have to recognize that we don't really stand for them."
--- Paul Wellstone

opposition, Lieberman would have told LBJ to shove it.

The truth is that there will always be people who claim that what we can get is not enough, and that there is some magical way we could have gotten more. Successful passage of legislation is ALWAYS due to the leaders' decision to ignore such people, who will never be satisfied, and instead pass what is possible. This is why every Senate Democrat (including Bernie Sanders) voted for HCR -- they, being in government, had an actual understanding of how government worked.

not by their EXCUSES.

We will NEVER know what would have happened if Obama had used his overwhelming popular mandate
and actually FOUGHT for "change"
instead of giving it all away in the back rooms without a fight.
WE were ready.

The insult to the injury was having the White House CAMPAIGNING and endorsing those very same "Democrats" who opposed reform in 2010 primaries. Obama even sent the Big Dog to campaign FOR virulently Anti-Medicare/Anti-LABOR Blanche Lincoln in Arkansas
when there was a perfectly good Pro-LABOR/Pro-HealthCare Democrat running against here in the Primary who was polling better than the Republican in the General.

Like I said,
we will NEVER know what could have been accomplished if Obama had chosen to FIGHT for us.
I would rather FIGHT and LOSE,
than to just give it all away and try to blame Joe Lieberman.


"If we don't fight hard enough for the things we stand for,
at some point we have to recognize that we don't really stand for them."
--- Paul Wellstone

that if the Civil Rights Act was passed, Democrats would lose the south. He traded that future for something urgent and important. Despite the eventual mess, I'm glad he did it.

"I am asking Obama to merely step away from radical Right Wing policies. I want the dis-mantlingof the social safety net to cease."

What "right wing policies"? Obama is "diismantling the social safety net?

Really? Enacting health care reform is dismantling the social safey net? Expanding Medicare and Medicaid?

Administration says more than 5 million on Medicare use free preventive care

I just can't understand why people don't see this.

I can't see how they can view "pet issues" (which I DO care about, but keep IN PERSPECTIVE) and keep economic security and some measure of quality of life for all Americans a priority.

AFAIK, no Democratic president since LBJ has really forwarded the progressive agenda. Although I admire Carter for many things, he did not advance the FDR/LBJ agenda. Clinton and Obama have not tried to reverse, or even stop or slow down, the dismantling of the social safety net and the protection of citizens against corporations.

It's like the Jedi Mind Tricks pulled by Ronald Ray-gun ("government is not part of the solution, it's part of the problem" and "the private sector can do it better") has mesmerized the entire population and really shifted the Democratic party away from what should be it's fundamental focus.

Thousands if not millions of people. But then again--you probably do know that.

I agree with you.

I will never ever get the apologists - Obama has consistently not followed through or followed through to the slightest extent, on what he's said he'd do while in campaign mode. Things like being able to import cheaper drugs from Canada, like being able to negotiate lower prescription costs - he made deals directly opposite of what he promised to do while running. Oh and he's throwing people in jail with no due process at a faster clip than Dubya. Etc, etc.

Still there are plenty who will never speak ill of the man.

My guess is that it is more than "some" here at DU that are living more privileged lives than many of us here.

How true!

Eventually there comes a time when you have nothing left to trade and no concessions left to make. Some pseudomoderate Democrats and conservadems either don't understand that or don't care about the people they claim to represent.

Just because one needs something does not mean that it is in the power of the President to give it to them.

You are looking at things based on what you need. But the Constitution doesn't say Obama can do anything so long as you need it (or so long as it is how the country used to be).

A better way to look at things is relative to what is actually possible for Obama to legally accomplish.

I have seen the word 'purity' often used in three contexts:

1. When someone is asking for a policy that the President can't actually deliver (single payer, public option, etc).

2. When someone is calling for killing a bill because it doesn't go far enough (HCR, financial reform, etc).

3. When someone is calling for an action that would lead to a suboptimal outcome given the alternatives (i.e. no bailout, and the 30% unemployment great depression that would have resulted).

To be sure, there are likely other uses of the term that are not appropriate. But in many cases, the word accurately captures what the author is trying to convey. This doesn't mean that needs aren't important, or that the Democratic party shouldn't work to meet those needs. Of course they should. It is just to say that in our system of government, the need for a policy is often irrelevant to the possibility of such a policy actually being enacted.

a tweet with BO at the end, that's him. Put your cursor over his tweet and hit reply, leaving This link! I think he would read it if you tweeted him and you should!

add ending the stupid and illegal wars to the list.

Just sign executive orders all damned day long and watch them howl as he solves all of the problems without THEM!!!

Screw the idea of "checks and balances", the Repigs did when Bush was in the WH!!

And a big fat K & R.

"You don't tri-angulate with destruction and ruin!"

When I read the subject line, I was worried that it was going to be, ahem, somebody wibbling on about beer and travel money. But this is important stuff.

chosen to sit down with the president and discuss the way things are out here.

get a free speech free ride, because no one gets in their face to yell back.

this disaster we're in and the power of the right to create and maintain it and extract compromise from the dems is a direct result of the left ignoring the 1000 radio stations that blast the country with coordinated corporate propaganda 24/7. when the left finally gets in their face with picketing and station sponsor boycotts and shaming on the local level the only thing giving the oligarchs an advantage over democracy will be gone.

I feel completely abandoned by my president, my government, and my party. It used to be presidents would name their initiatives a "war," like the "War on Poverty" or even the stupid "War on Drugs." Where is the "War on Unemployment"? Where is our "Jobs Czar"? Where are the jobs initiatives other than embracing the long-discredited Trickle Down Economy?

I still vote because I still have representatives worth voting for: Keith Ellison, Al Franken, and even Amy Klobuchar. If it weren't for them I would probably give up. And people wonder why the poor and disenfranchised don't vote! Why bother when it doesn't seem to make a whole lot of difference?

:kick:

:applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause:


Well said and right to the point.

The corporate/media complex is running this country.

or 1000000 for that matter.

But if it feels good,... knock yourself out

:applause::applause::applause:

:yourock:

:kick:

:hi:

a beautiful thing. I am gratified to read this post.