Our Pundits Activists Of Perpetual Disappointment are going to be on their best behavior at Netroots Nation in June, apparently. We’ll see how that works out.
The Professional Left is ready to play nice.
This June, progressive activists will gather once again for their annual convention, Netroots Nation. Born from the DailyKos community, the conference is a premier event on the liberal calendar, and a good way to take the temperature of the progressive community. And this year, it’s feeling pretty darn good, Netroots organizers said Monday. President Obama is no longer persona non grata, and the left is ready to build on what it sees as a very successful past 12 months.
Last year, the left was angry. At their conference in Minneapolis last year, the anger of thousands of progressives who were spitting mad at President Obama was palpable. They dragged White House Communications Director Dan Pfieffer on stage for a well-attended drubbing that included boos.
This was a Netroots still smarting from then-Press Secretary Robert Gibbs’ “professional left” crack, which left progressives feeling (at best) unloved by the Obama White House. They returned that sentiment in spades to Team Obama in 2011. At a panel called “What To Do When The President Is Just Not That Into You,” LGBT activist Dan Choi actually ripped up an Obama flyer on camera and chastised the Obama volunteer who dared present it to him.
There is no such panel evident on the Netroots schedule for 2012. At this year’s conference in Providence, R.I., the bitterness will be tempered, organizers say.
Yeah, color me skeptical. There may not be any overt panels on “Obama Failed Us 101” but last year’s shenanigans at Netroots Nation really left an awful taste in my mouth. It’s good that folks have figured out that an election year actually matters and that going after POTUS isn’t going to be very helpful. Some will do it anyway.
Having said that, I’m thinking there’s going to be a few unpleasant surprises for whomever the White House sends out that way this year and there’s going to be plenty of Fee-Fees Comma Hurt on display for all to see, which is yet another reason I’ve got no desire to schlep out that way. I understand the Purveyors of Purity have to fly the colors once in a while to let people know which side they are (supposedly) on, but there’s been folks on the “left” that have had it in for President Obama since Iowa 2008 and old habits die hard.
Besides, as I’m sure the coming comments will attest to, we only attack ourselves in the end.
Ramiah Ariya
The post reads pretty tribal to me.
Comrade Dread
Well, it just wouldn’t be a proper Democratic hootenanny without a circular firing squad, now would it?
But personally, I think that’s a good thing, if it is at times frustrating. Better to have folks that are skeptical about authority and willing to call out wrongs done by their party than to all march in lockstep.
Steve
What would Netroots Nation have said about FDR, one wonders. These days, you can get on the hate list for dropping a bomb on one terrorist who happens to be a U.S. citizen. FDR put tens of thousands of citizens in camps!
satby
Pretty much agree. You’d like to think they learned that politics ain’t beanbag, but there’s always that bunch in the corner grizzling about 3rd parties and primaries from the left.
Winston Smith
This is why I’ve given up on DailyKos. They may not be in the Firebagger Fever swamps, but it’s basically their backyard. They are now an established part of the White Outrage Industrial Complex.
taylormattd
The white house shouldn’t send ANYONE to that conference, ever, period. There is no point.
eemom
Wow, a realtime live action 3-D flamewar! Kewl!
lamh35
Ya know, I like Jon Stewart, but it’s becoming plainly obvious that he has bought into this persona that the MSM projects onto him that he’s some sort of “fair and balance” version of political comedy, which is fine I guess, but his false equivalency schtick has worn thin and I’m personally done watching the show. I’ll stick to Colbert who at the very least doesn’t play into the false equivalence game, and it just 1,000,000,000X funnier anyway!
Jon Stewart criticizes Obama for slow-jamming news: ‘You’re the president! You don’t have to do this s– anymore!’
feebog
So because it is an election year, no pushback from the left is allowed? WTF? Its not like they are going to burn Obama in effigy or something. And a representative from the White House got booed by a few attendees last year? Wow, tough stuff.
JWL
Zandar: Had Boehner accepted the cuts to social security and medicare that Obama offered up just last year, would your own fee-fees still be so lovey dovey towards the president? You do remember The Grand Bargain, don’t you?
Hawes
Well, all I know is I don’t have my fucking unicorn pony yet, because Obama failed to nationalize the unicorn pony breeders.
Karmakin
Reasonable, realistic pushback is fine. There’s very little that’s reasonable and realistic from what we see.
Obama doesn’t do very much that isn’t politically the correct thing to do, at least from a certain perspective. I’m not sure that perspective is correct, but I’m not sure it’s wrong either. (The argument being if it should be that the focus should be on attracting independent and “swing” voters or focus on maximizing base turnout)
Hawes
@JWL: And if a frog had wings…
Daley was a terrible pick for Chief of Staff and that was the lowest point in his Presidency.
Kind of like Clinton’s welfare reform and FDR’s balanced budget attempts in ’37.
The reason circular firing squads aren’t helpful should be painfully apparent to anyone surveying the freshman class in the House. If the same people who voted in ’08 voted in ’10, we wouldn’t have quite such a high incident of ass hattery in the House.
Scott S.
The White House doesn’t send staffers to attend comic conventions. They shouldn’t send anyone to attend the firebagger convention either.
askew
I think this is more of a saving face gesture on the netroots side. Their behavior was appalling the last couple of years at NN. I would imagine that the WH isn’t the only high-profile guest they are having problems booking, after Angry Mouse’s boorish interviewing of the WH speaker last year. Also, DK’s active posters seems to be dwindling. There is much slower turnover on the recommended list and there are fewer comments in diaries. I think DK’s influence was greatest in 2008 and their firebagging behavior in 2009-2011 hurt their reputation among the Democratic Party and hurt their overall participation #s.
danimal
Started to say something here, but then my brain kicked in. I think I’ll sit this one out.
Circular firing squad: Ready, aim, fire!
Freddie deBoer
Besides, as I’m sure the coming comments will attest to, we only attack ourselves in the end.
Right, because here you aren’t doing precisely that, because… oh, right. You’re doing exactly that.
They drag their elected officials towards the politics they support. You drag our elected officials to some vague concept of the center. The result is inevitable: the center lies closer to where they want it than where you want. And so we lose and lose and lose. But at least you get to tell firebagger jokes!
jim filyaw
repeat after me: saint ralph, saint ralph, saint ralph…
if nothing else, dubya was a history lesson in what comes of demands for political or ideological purity. kind of like hitler, sitting in his bunker as the russians approached, saying that the german people weren’t good enough for him.
Bobbyk
“Zandar: Had Boehner accepted the cuts to social security and medicare that Obama offered up just last year, would your own fee-fees still be so lovey dovey towards the president? You do remember The Grand Bargain, don’t you?”
Absolutley postively correct. Obama begged, begged boehner on several occasions to sign on to a grand bargain. We’re supposed to be ok with that? A democrat playing a major role in destroying SS?
I’ve never understood this mentality that your leader can not ever be criticized. A ridiculous sentiment.
amk
Too little, too late. They poked out their own eyes. Where the fuck is dan choi now a days ? With his pals, the log republicans ?
taylormattd
@feebog: Is that a joke? You realize that to this day, many of the leading lights in the so-called “left” blogosphere call him “murderer”, allege he claims an unlimited power to assassinate any american at will, and were even a couple of months ago, writing articles claiming Romney would win unless Obama was replaced on the ticket? Obama has been openly loathed by the majority of the big boys in the “progressive” blogosphere since 2007.
Clime Acts
Zandar, you DO know NN is a gathering of progressive Internet types and not a Triumph of the Will-style gathering of the Democratic Party Led By Leader For Life Obama, don’t you?
eric
I will bet that Obama or Biden shows up unannounced.
Middlewest
Remember that time Netroots Nation mattered? Yeah, me neither. But at least it gives me an insight into how actual vampires would feel about LARPing conventions.
taylormattd
@Freddie deBoer: Who gives a shit what you have to say?
You have zero say in shaping anything Obama says or does, because you informed him over a year ago that you wouldn’t be voting for him.
Martin
@feebog:
The problem is that the critics from both parties tend to criticize the President for things that Congress does. But because nobody gets to talk to their party caucus, they pile onto the only representative they get – which is the executive.
Focusing on executive issues is totally okay, but they never, ever do that. On legislative issues, they need to see that representative more as one of them – how do we together get Congress to do this? If the WH says ‘no we’re not going to help and here’s why’ – criticize that. I’ve yet to see that discussion take place in that way. Instead, it’s demands for action from the branch of government that isn’t empowered to act.
From what I’ve seen of interactions between SCOTUS members and law school forums, they have a much clearer understanding of what the role of government is than the bloggers (and pundits, political reporters, etc) do.
Yevgraf
Let the feelings of hurt fester!
The Snarxist Formerly Known as Kryptik
@Hawes:
How much of that was actually firebaggers though, and how much of that was casual voters tuning out like they always do in midterms or getting swept up in the Right’s much louder “RABBLE RABBLE COMMUMUSLIN OBAMACARE KILLIN’ FREEDUMS!!!” drumbeat? You’re right the same people voting in ’08 didn’t in ’10…but from what I remember, that drop off came less from pouty liberals sitting it out because of fee-fees and more from people who just don’t bother to vote in off years because they barely pay attention to politics as is.
As much as firebaggers piss me off, they’re barely relevant as is, and they’re a miniscule part of why things are fucked up now as they are.
taylormattd
@Clime Acts:
There, fixed that for you.
Mickey
I felt exactly the same way last year. To the point I turned my back on all of them and haven’t really looked back. They lost a lot of credibility what that stunt.
If Dan Choi and some of the other usual panderers are there this year then nothing has changed. Choi lives and breathes to critisize the prez. He used to say that his whole problem was with DADT and the prez needed to earn his approval by repealing it. As soon as Obama did that Choi found some other cause to critisize the prez over.
So fuck him and his causes.
Samuel Knight
Yeah, Daily Kos are just so unreasonable and stupid for yelling for 3 years – Please Mr President stand up to the GOP and push some of your popular policies.
And he ignored those stupid rabble rousers – and he lost Congress – and got more and more unpopular. And watched the GOP get nuttier and nuttier.
Until, after finally he pushed back and started pushing his policies – and he and the Democratic party are once again getting more popular.
Gee – why were those idiots on Daily Kos so stupid?
To make it clear – the Obama enablers in the first 3 years didn’t help. It’s the screamers who did.
Clime Acts
@lamh35:
Slow-jamming the news was tacky.
taylormattd
@Mickey: Dan Choi, like so many of my gay brethren who started blogging, is a fucking republican. They LOVE them some republicans. Oh, let’s pen and ode to Dick Cheney. To Ken Mehlman. To Gary Johnson. To Ron Paul. Vomit.
Belafon (formerly anonevent)
@feebog: I’m surprised it took nine comments to get an attack.
MikeJ
@lamh35: Some one should sock it to him.
kindness
We should pony our money together and send John as the Balloon Juice representative. Yea, he’s rolling his eyes just reading that but it would be a very positive thing, both for NetRoots & BJ (and John).
And really, fdl are the circular firing squad crew more than the GOS.
comrade scott's agenda of rage
@askew:
The Wreck List activity as you describe it is precisely because it’s dominated by firebaggers. Layout changes and emphasis on Community Spotlight were efforts made to reduce the prominence of the Wreck List and it’s bevy of firebagging asshats. Given the comments in this thread, that hasn’t worked out too well.
The biggest problem at NN last year was they gave Calamity Jane a prominent, lead role on a panel. For the life of me, I’ll never get why Markos continues to deal with her: his political mission is not hers.
Clime Acts
@Freddie deBoer:
I bow to your succinct-itude, Freddie. Kudos.
amk
@Samuel Knight:
Ah, the delusion of power of lungs.
Just Some Fuckhead
We need to figure out a way to identify and track folks that aren’t sufficiently loyal to the President. Maybe a number on their forehead or hand. Just thinking out loud.
Citizen_X
@Freddie deBoer:
They win and win and win mainly because they have iron discipline (recent Teabagger crankiness notwithstanding). Firebagger-type dissent in the ranks is usually stomped on quickly. You’re supposed to shut up, get in line, and vote for whomever the GOP has nominated.
On the left, OTOH, any suggestion that we shouldn’t shit on the party that gets us at least part way towards our goals is treated as most horrible repression.
El Tiburon
Yeah, it really is a shame we are not some homogeneous-zombie block.
It really would be preferable if anyone with a beef with Mr. President and his policies would JUST SHUT THE FUCK UP.
Because, you see, in the Land of the Free and the Brave – it is better to shut your fucking pie hole than to speak out.
It is this common thought that permeates this blog that really pisses me off and shows just how weak and shallow some of you really are.
Yes, I am afraid of what a President Romney will do to this country, but not enough to silence me.
Yes, I am afraid of what a President Romney will do to this country, but I also know what President Obama has done and a lot of it sure does suck. I mean really, really suck.
Fuck.
taylormattd
@comrade scott’s agenda of rage:
Because of $$. They have an LLC or two together.
fasteddie9318
Shorter Zandar: you useless fucking whiner liberal nerds should stop calling Obama bad names and lashing out at him in anger. We all need to be on the same team, and if you all weren’t such worthless loser pieces of shit purists you’d understand that and stop attacking your allies like this.
Clime Acts
@taylormattd:
They’re pushing from the Left. You should try it rather than Worshiping From the Right.
El Tiburon
@amk:
care to elaborate?
AxelFoley
The PL promising to not attack President Obama at their little circle jerk retreat?
Yeah, right.
Clime Acts
@taylormattd:
giggle…I can hear the feet stamping from here.
Berto
I’ve had it in for Obama since his Telecomm immunity vote in 2008, not Iowa. And his war on whistle-blowers, while letting the financial criminals walk, has yet to win me over.
Maybe his “I’ll sell you down the river slower than the GOP will” campaign will work. We’ll see.
srv
Like an abused dog, they’ve been beaten so much they’re becoming more submissive.
amk
@El Tiburon: Read it again. And again, if you don’t get it.
Middlewest
@JWL:
And what if, like, monkeys had flew out of his butt? WHAT THEN!!??
I hate being accused of participating in any firing squad, circular or otherwise, with people this pig-stupid.
AxelFoley
@lamh35:
Fuck Jon Stewart for real. Fuck him and his show.
comrade scott's agenda of rage
@taylormattd:
Hey there ole comrade!
Really? Do tell. I didn’t realize they had any kind of bidness relationship. I always thought she had massive envy because he managed to build himself a viable business out of this while she couldn’t.
Clime Acts
@Mickey:
It’s called PUSHING FROM THE LEFT. Try it instead of FAWNING FROM THE RIGHT.
El Tiburon
@Hawes:
.
Hmmm…something is missing here. Oh yeah – what did FDR do in the years leading up to 37?
And what did Clinton do? And Obama? Oh yeah, Lily Ledbetter.
Clime Acts
@Samuel Knight:
BINGO
AxelFoley
@askew:
Bingo.
El Tiburon
@Karmakin:
Wow, you are hired! You just wrote a lot of words with punctuation but said nothing of any substance.
Sometimes a leader, when forced with a tough hand, will sometimes select the hard choice – not just the politically correct choice. Obama has yet to make a tough choice.
El Tiburon
@amk:
Oh I get it. I get you don’t care to elaborate.
Next time just type in “NO”
Just Some Fuckhead
Fucking splitters.
Belafon (formerly anonevent)
I think NN is the left’s equivalent of one of those think tanks. I mean, really, the only way to herd cats is to convince them to herd themselves. I don’t think it does much to move the Overton window – that’s what things like Occupy Wall Street are for – but you at least get people face to face to talk about issues on the left rather than the fire and forget of blogs.
AxelFoley
Good God. It’s early afternoon and the trolls are already out. Usually these fuckers wait until nighttime to come out.
amk
@El Tiburon: yeah, ACA, OBL, Lily Ledbetter, DADT were just pc choices. What that fucker knows about ‘hard choices”?
Whiny pos.
El Tiburon
@Steve:
It’s official. The internet is over. Turn it off and lock the doors.
So much stupid in one comment.
The Snarxist Formerly Known as Kryptik
@Citizen_X:
Or you know, the way the Right makes anything that would help the left ridiculously toxic in ways that makes the left eat itself alive. That helps too.
Note the way that the big recent rhetorical successes against the right have been issues that the GOP has been forced to distance itself from things being made rhetorically toxic. Occupy made the 1% and Wall Street support dangerous because it tapped into things that helped make a core part of the GOP (corporate love) as much a liability as a boon. Same with the recent slut-shaming War on Women.
Sadly, the only reasons these rhetorical successes haven’t translated into political or policy success is because 2010 gave them inordinate institutional advantages where they can just say ‘fuck all’ and push their agenda regardless.
Still, the point stands: iron discipline isn’t going to happen on the left for various reasons. We need to instead undermine the discipline on the right by helping make some of their advantages toxic instead. And like I said, firebagger influence is so miniscule in real authority that attacking them undermines the ‘left’ just as much (if not more) than just trying to ignore them.
Lev
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
amk
@El Tiburon: Right. Morons can’t understand multiple words.
Egg Berry
trololololololololololol
LanceThruster
@Comrade Dread:
Well put.
lacp
So should we consider this post “The Airing of Grievances: The Pre-Grievancing?”
El Tiburon
@amk:
-It is a given that ANY democratic president is going to try and implement some form of health reform. Pushing for a public option or single payer = TOUGH CHOICE. Settling for a Heritage Foundation right-wing solution = NOT TOUGH CHOICE
-Going after the most wanted man EVAH and killing him as he is living with his wives in a house = EASY CHOICE. Going after OBL and taking him alive to put on trial – HARD CHOICE
-Ending the very unpopular DADT = Easy choice.
No, these were not tough choices – unless you count not wanting to piss off Fox News.
amk
@El Tiburon: Yeah, keep fucking that senseless goat, you will birth your mittbot to make all those ‘tough choices’, for you.
Cassidy
For those who are saying they can’t understand why you “can’t criticize” the President, it’s actually really simple. You just refuse to understand it.
So when a group of people who can be painted as the Democratic base, even though they’re not, our largely RW media spends an unlimited amount of time making sure everyone knows that the “base” is not happy. Then, you’re low information voters like Clime Acts and mclaren latch onto that and either don’t show up to vote or do some idiotic protest vote, effectively allowing the Republicans to win and begin enacting a far RW agenda that will literally destroy lives.
See? Not hard.
Marcellus Shale, Public Dick
the kos machine, and netroots was a great offensive weapon. they were on point attacking dead eye dick and the turd blossom posse. they kept attacking the president as if 2008 never happened, instead of busting the right who was waging its own war of obstruction. different tools for different jobs.
Cassidy
…says the commenter on a blog.
SatanicPanic
Maybe if Zandar can keep the trolls distracted here we can enjoy the other threads in peace
Martin
@Clime Acts: Obama didn’t repeal DADT, Congress did. Obama signed it when it got to him, which he said he’d do from day one.
Look, if you want to limit executive power, then stop fucking acting like the executive has power that he doesn’t have. If you put pressure on the President to do something he’s not empowered to do, the only way he can appease you is by grabbing more power, which you’ll then bitch about. Direct your ire at Congress instead, since not only is that who needs to do all of this stuff, but is also who you WANT to do all of this stuff.
Fucking separation of powers, how does it work?!
Culture of Truth
Is there wingnut equivalent? Because Mitt isn’t into them.
MikeJ
@Cassidy: Heighten the contradictions!
Culture of Truth
.
I like Obama but I can’t say I agree with this.
Clime Acts
@Cassidy:
hahahaha…
ornery_curmudgeon
So this post starts with the sneer “Activists Of Perpetual Disappointment”
And then whines at the end “Besides, as I’m sure the coming comments will attest to, we only attack ourselves in the end.”
LOL. Can you even consider your own self, even briefly?
And maybe Obama did better because of the anger … gee.
Clime Acts
@Cassidy:
Hey tard: I live in Massachusetts, which will likely go to Obama. Thus in this fucked up Electoral College Republican system of government we have, designed to keep power in the hands of the elite, my vote doesn’t mean much one way or the other. So chill.
Nevertheless, I’ll vote for him, because my partner is a politically naive dreamer and I wish to continue getting laid.
Remember, after Bush v Gore, when the Dems were going to move to eliminate the Electoral College? Funny that…
kindness
Alas, Balloon Juice threads have now become a parody of BJer’s own criticisms of other lefty sites. It seems the primary motivation for some is to suggest others aren’t as pure as they should be. Please understand, I think mocking is OK. The level it’s being taken to here on an all too regular basis isn’t mocking though. It isn’t much different from the criticisms of what goes on at fdl & the GOS…..funny too as those two sites are listed as the Gold Standard of what makes the left the stupid by many here.
I still read fdl once in a while, but not as much as I once did. I read DKos every day. Don’t read the comments there though. Both sites are informative in their own way and that is why I go out and read blogs. To see what others think.
The prophet Nostradumbass
I was actually at Netroots Nation last year, and the amount of firebagger “Obama sux” stuff has been exaggerated to an amazing degree. The people engaging in that were a tiny minority of the attendees and panel members, but don’t let that get in the way, you’ve got you narrative.
Loviatar
Shorter Zander/Obot
Bend over and say “Thank you sir, may I have another”
Heliopause
I still haven’t figured out if you’re for real or a very subtle satirist.
El Tiburon
@The prophet Nostradumbass:
Shocking! Are you saying that many of the BJ Commentors give not a fuck about the truth except for that fiction that resides within their skulls?
Why Why Why Dkos and Firebaggers are the end of the World!!!
Tonal Crow
A troll, a troll, so dull a troll,
It flogs a horse so dead,
That bleached-white bones are all that lie,
Upon its prairie bed.
askew
@taylormattd:
Yep, it is all about money for kos.
I’d love nothing better for the entire Democratic Party to ignore NN this year, but it isn’t going to happen unfortunately.
Forum Transmitted Disease
Hate to be the guy to break the news, but NN is PACKED TO THE GILLS with paid GOP ratfuckers.
I pay as much attention to that conference as I do to Fox News, which is to say not at all.
EDIT: What some others have said – the WH should not dignify this clusterfuck with their presence, and I mean not even a single low-level staffer. We always talk here about primarying out those who don’t toe the line. I think a great place to start would be NN.
askew
@The prophet Nostradumbass:
Unfortunately, the firebagger stuff is all that got played in the media. And since the netroots has spent years bitching at Obama for not being able to control the media, I don’t have a lot of sympathy for people complaining that NN wasn’t protrayed fairly in the news.
Corner Store Operator
@Forum Transmitted Disease:
Can you tell us just a few of the GOP ratfuckers who pack NN to the gills. You can’t just make a claim like this…
NR
@taylormattd: Well, not everyone can be an unthinking cultist like you. No matter how much you hate it, some people are going to continue to have independent thoughts. You are never going to line everyone up with your mindless idol worship. Learn to live with that.
Mino
Besides, as I’m sure the coming comments will attest to, we only attack ourselves in the end
I see you were first to get in a shot.
Do you read what you write?
NR
@Loviatar: I’m calling it right now: If Obama wins re-election, the signature accomplishment of his second term will be a “Grand Bargain” with the GOP on Social Security and Medicare. And people here will cheer when it happens.
Just Some Fuckhead
There once was a poster named Zandar,
Such concern he had for Commander-
With regular precision
He’d lament criticism
It’s hard work keeping the clan pure!
Corner Store Operator
@NR: That’s if the Republicans will have him. I don’t think this Congress would have passed Clinton’s welfare reform because it was ‘too liberal’
Just Some Fuckhead
@Knockabout:
When you set the bar Michael D. low, everything looks like an improvement.
Loviatar
@NR:
Yeah thats going to happen
GOP’s Anti-Obama Campaign Started Night Of Inauguration
Xecky Gilchrist
Yeah, color me skeptical.
Likewise. The Reedy Nasal Whine cannot be contained.
Suffern ACE
@jim filyaw: O.K. you can say what you want about Kos, but it is NOT where people used to go to get inspired to throw their votes away for Ralph and protest the Democratic party. The More and Better Democrats ideal did not run through a third party. They should have an adverserial relationship with the party. They need to. There are other groups within the party that are actually hostile to them. There are, say, a lot of Dems in their enclaves in the Northeast that feel they should run everything based on some kind of breeding program. I’m thinking of things like the New York Times and a bunch of donors trying to foist Harold Ford on New York last year (Kirsten Gillibrand may not be the absolute liberal lion, but at least she wasn’t working for Bank of America in some million dollar a year lobbying position).
But last year went beyond adverserial against high-hairs and DLC Democrats and waded into hostility. You want to take power from them and gain influence, not actually destroy pretty much the only relationship you have to one of the estabilished parties (the only one you are ever going to get as a left leaning citizen in this country.)
NR
@Corner Store Operator: Oh, the Republicans will take the furthest right position, like they always do. And Obama will move to meet them, like he always does, making the final product of negotiations even worse than what he started with.
Obama will probably take the $650 billion in cuts he already offered the GOP as a starting point. They will say no way, it’s not enough, and Obama will negotiate with them. Meanwhile, progressives will say that we shouldn’t be cutting Social Security and Medicare at all, and people like Zandar and taylormattd will scream “Shut up, firebagger!” over and over again. Obama and the GOP will come to a “compromise” that’s probably in the neighborhood of $1 trillion in cuts, with the potential for more cuts in the future, and Obama will tout it as a great bipartisan victory for the future of our nation, and most everyone here will cheer and applaud because Obama Gets Shit Done.
dmbeaster
Daily Kos is still the go-to site for polling analysis and nuts and bolts politics about countless races. The front page articles don’t carry much firebagger type stuff. Forget the diaries unless someone flags one worth reading.
Obama has behaved pretty much as advertised – a centrist with some degree of populism. He also emphasized finding some degree of bipartisanship in addressing problems. He stuck with that agenda far too long, and I view 2010 as largely a result of that mistake. Obama failed to provide critical political leadership in those early years, which allegedly arose from a desire to lessen bitterness and increase the prospects of working with Republicans. All it did was make his look weak and feckless while Republicans went nutball crazy with their critique of him and his agenda. It was a bad political miscalculation by Obama and his staff, which episode is hopefully over. However, it also to some degree enabled him to get some big things done, but surely there was some better way to do it and without so much political cost.
Progressives need to be constructively angry about his shortcomings without undermining support. Nothing wrong with that — except for those who decide that Obama is not that different from the Mittster, in which case, fuck you sideways. Our two party system (the inevitable structural result of winner take all elections) doesn’t give you the luxury of indulging ideological purity and sniping from the sidelines, unless you prefer irrelevance and enabling evil.
beergoggles
Concern troll is concerned…
Yeah, I know saying that is pretty insulting after Sadly No! has been using it on McArglebargle for so long.. but if the shoe fits..
The prophet Nostradumbass
@Knockabout: Fuck off, stalker.
Karl
Can someone please tell me what the proper, Balloon-Juice approved reaction is when the President, democratic or otherwise, does something harmful? Forget any and all history here. I am a liberal/progressive, DFH, whatever you want to call me. The democratic president has done something that I believe is harmful to the country. What should my reaction be? How do I voice my displeasure without angering everyone here? I’m not being sarcastic, I’m genuinely asking.
My worst fear here is not a Republican president. There will be one of those in my lifetime. They will appoint supreme court justices and pass laws that harm this country. My worst fear is that the Democrats will ALSO do damage, giving the Republicans room to do EVEN MORE damage.
BONUS: Swype auto-corrected Republican to Reptilian.
OzoneR
@El Tiburon:
yeah, fighting the popular Arizona immigration choice isn’t a tough choice, sure
rea
@Clime Acts: Remember, after Bush v Gore, when the Dems were going to move to eliminate the Electoral College? Funny that…
Yeah, it’s a shame we never did that while we had a 2/3 majority in both houses, and a 3/4 majority of state legislatures, to put through a constitutional amendment. Oh, wait . . .
Joey Maloney
@Middlewest: FTMFW, sir!
Forum Transmitted Disease
@Knockabout: This was one of the best posts I’ve read here in the last year. It has bought every ratfucker and firebagger out of the woodwork and right into my pie filter.
You I leave out, because I think you’re a threat to Zandar’s safety and I want your stalker posts archived – in case he’s harmed – so I can hand over your massive trail of freely posted evidence to the Feds.
amk
for the firebagger, nutroot and other trolls, this is the reality
Q: Last week the acting OMB director sent a letter to Congressional appropriators saying that basically the top line agreed to in the Budget Control Act, that the President would veto it if it’s not met.
BOEHNER: Blah blah blah blah blah, alright, so?
Q: Is that an official response?
BOEHNER: Yes.
——————————-
maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/26/11412649-quote-of-the-day?lite
Now GFY.
Loviatar
@Karl:
Great question, good luck with an answer.
I asked something similar a few years ago when Obama said the following and all I got in response was a stream of FIREBAGGER chants.
Obama rejects probe on Bush-era torture: “Need to look forward not backwards”
Forum Transmitted Disease
@Karl: Man up and put it out there. Contrary to what the ratfuckers on this thread would have you believe, we criticize Obama here all the damn time. If your argument has merit, it will be applauded.
If it doesn’t, well…the reason I love this community and have stuck with it for so long is that is that they don’t mince words or fuck around when someone is being stupid, they go after your ass and beat on it hard until you admit you’re wrong or ragequit.
Most ragequit. That’s the sign of somebody who really didn’t have a legit problem in the first place.
Nemesis
The gop made it Job1 to thwart any and all possible success under an Obama presidency. The gop has been “severely” successful. No doubt about it…
But when we have a President who continues to lack the wherewithal to recognize the oppositions blatant attempts to crush his aims, combined with a Preisdent who, up to this point, has played the game exactly how Dems have been playing the game for decades, that being, weak, immediate-surrender politics, then a reasonable person can only conclude that the “spunk” and “real pushback” exhibited by our party and this President will be minor attempts to gain ones footing while stumbling backward, driven down and out by an ever-delusional gop and a media who ensure the Dems look “shrill”, even while capitulating on essential legislation.
Mickey
@Clime Acts: It’s called firebagging. Why don’t you go hang out with them on FDL where you belong.
amk
@Karl:
Really ? So you don’t fear a rethug president despite the past evidence what they were/are capable of doing and yet you ‘fear’ a democratic president without any past evidence of any of them ratfucking you and with possible future evidence of what they might do to you. Man, you sound just like those teabaggers to me.
Corner Store Operator
@Forum Transmitted Disease: I’m still waiting for you to respond to who all the GOP employed ratfuckers are at NN. You put your argument out there, but I don’t think it has much merit. I love this community as well so I’d like you to give me a few names. I hope I’m not already in your pie filter for one post asking you a question about a pretty outrageous accusation.
Karl
Okay, here’s my (latest) problem with the Obama administration. The Robosigning settlement. Robosigning is fraud. They are signing documents back-dated to pretend they have a legal right to foreclose on someone. This “settlement” lets them off the hook completely- for about 2 grand per family. So get your house stolen, you get 2k back. And no one goes to jail. Seriously, shit is fucked up and bullshit.
These are the actions of a Democratic president, that I voted for. Proudly. What am I supposed to do with this? Keep my mouth shut because Mitt Romney? This isn’t rhetorical- how do I voice my criticisms without angering the front-pagers here?
Karl
@amk: Please read the rest of my comment. I will see a Republican President in my lifetime. What I fear is that the Democratic presidents do bad and give the Republicans room to do worse.
Arm The Homeless
So El Tiburon and Clime Acts are the same person? Sock-puppets for everyone!
Here, have some fun and see what hilarity ensues in these recent posts involving this idiot.
Clime Acts
@Knockabout:
Racist!
amk
@Karl: Yes, I have read your full comment and asked you a question. Why are you more worried that a dem prez would screw you when you don’t have any evidence to support that theory ?
Die Hard Republican
Congratulations! An excellent preemptive strike in the next round of Democrat circular firing squad!
Keep up the good work Zandar, your attacks will surely the alienate more and more Lefty voters!
Keep widening that divide, hahahahaha!
shortstop
Damn, this kind of conversation never gets any less foolish. I don’t say we should all get along; I just don’t see why anyone cares so much that we don’t. Waaaaaaaay too many people in these kinds of threads have the mistaken impression that it’s about them.
Some Loser
This thread has been an enjoyable read. Zander, I usually, uh, like your posts, but this had to be flame-bait. Are you just bored today and decided to to rile up those with ODS?
Some people can’t show self-restraint.
Some Loser
@shortstop:
I just don’t understand the point of this post.
Clime Acts
@Mickey:
the weakest sauce of all.
don’t read FDL hardly ever. Don’t much care for it, so I leave Jane to the tender mercies of those of you obsessed with her.
now fuck off
Sly
Pushing from the Left™
Because the best way to convince a politician to enact your preferred agenda is to call them a murderer and demand they be fired. Anything less is a complete capitulation to the Cult of Personality.
Clime Acts
@Arm The Homeless:
What the fuck are you babbling about, maroon?
Time for your Lithium/Librium cocktail.
NR
@amk: There is plenty of evidence from Obama’s first term.
Forum Transmitted Disease
@Karl: Go nuts. Scream bloody blue murder. If this is such an outrage, why care if you anger a front pager?
Me, I think you’re bitching about a cancerous mole when your house is on fire, but hey, everyone has their line, and this may be yours. Mine’s the Supreme Court. Everyone has something different. But they all lead to the same place in the end.
The reality of the situation is that you have a binary choice here. Obama or Romney. Sorry the Presidential Unicorn didn’t bring you better choices, but hey, this is what we got. Pick one. If it’s Obama I’ll applaud you for making a tough choice – he was exactly what he campaigned as, and what he campaigned as – another centrist Dem, just like Hillary – wasn’t my first choice. My alternative, as you might recall, was quite a bit worse.
If it’s Romney I’ll tell you you’re an idiot until you leave the site.
There are a lot of attempts to confuse the issue here, toss down a lot of distractions. They are crap and most of us know it. Here are your choices:
Obama
Romney
Pick one and get on with it.
gaz
@Karl: hear hear,
Also, no torture prosecutions, while the criminals that perpetuated it not ONLY roam free here, but in pampered taxpayer funded luxury.
They can’t leave this 3,794,083 square mile 5 star hotel/prison cell of course, because the rest of the world would see them hanged. The fact that they have not faced any charges is an utter and tragic embarrassment.
On the other hand, the only president that I AM CERTAIN would demand prosecution would be Bernie fucking Sanders (have I mentioned I love that man? Today?) and that will never happen. I’ll take what I can get.
I guess that makes me a firebagger. If not, then this will start the flames: I’m not voting obama in 2012. (watch the thread explode – even though he’ll get my electoral vote – now watch the obots go apeshit)
NR
@amk: Give it your best kick, Charlie Brown! I’m sure Lucy won’t pull the football away this time!
El Tiburon
@OzoneR:
As he continues to deport more immigrants than Bush. As he continues to push the same kind of policies like NAFTA that helped to create workers from the South from coming here in the first place.
TOUGH CHOICE: repeal NAFTA and rethink sending all of our jobs overseas. That’s the tough fucking choice.
Sentient Puddle
@kindness:
I think this is important and needs to be highlighted.
Too many people ’round here have lost sight of any sense of perspective, I presume because they think it makes for good snark. It doesn’t. When you default to something along the lines of “fuck ’em with a rusty pitchfork” as a response to something you don’t like, you dilute the meaning of properly getting fucked by a pitchfork. And then the next time someone brings along a pitchfork, what should have been a spectacle is now just rote and, more damningly, rather dull.
In other words, let’s develop some range. It doesn’t work if your two settings are “neutral” and “angry” (and I think I’m being generous in giving some people the “neutral” setting).
Forum Transmitted Disease
@Arm The Homeless: Yeah, this has been obvious for a while, but you summed it up better than I could have. I think that poster has another few personas in reserve as well.
Arm The Homeless
Dammit, Cleek, you magnificent bastard!
I love some of these bon mots in the filter, many I haven’t seen so far, but this one made me laugh
EDIT: Block-quote fail; but there was one about cutting a pumpkin on its diameter to get Pumpkin Pi!
amk
@NR: What evidence ? That you didn’t get your particular pretend pony is not evidence. BTW, I remember you from Sargent’s tpm days. You’re a whiny PUMA and as such won’t vote for Obama. Fine. Now GFY.
FlipYrWhig
@Suffern ACE: Don’t forget that Gillibrand was anathema to DailyKos and FDL when David Paterson was hemming and hawing over whom he would appoint. There were innumerable anti-Gillibrand diaries redlining the rec list. They wanted Caroline Kennedy and were livid when Gillibrand got the nod, saying that Kennedy had been sandbagged and now NY was stuck with a Republican in Democrats’ clothing.
IMHO the best contribution the “netroots” could make to politics would be to spread the word about progressive POLICY, like, say, single-payer health care, stringent investment-bank regulation, or the economic and environmental benefits of “green jobs.” Push progressives towards a better understanding of what, if we had our druthers, we would have our government do. And treat moves in that direction as small victories, not, as tends to happen, as appalling cave-ins and sell-outs. Put out there what we want, then challenge candidates to do it. That’s the constructive alternative to (1) finding fault with every attempt because it’s not 100% ideal, or (2) glomming onto whatever the president does and defending it as the best possible outcome.
It should be more like this: we want X, because it would have benefits Y and Z. Then when we run the gauntlet of the political system and end up with P instead, which is way off the goal of X and doesn’t have the same benefits, we thank everyone for their hard work moving in the right direction, and continue to talk about the wonders of X, and drum up candidates and pundits and strategists with ideas about how to get from P to X. Instead, we end up in these interminable conversations where some of us defend P and others gnash their teeth about not having X, and no one takes the time to figure out how to get to Q and R anytime soon, and we just glower at each other thinking the other side is being naive.
El Tiburon
@Karl:
You must state your problem in a way that either Congress, Hamsher or Greenwald are to blame.
See, if you state you really dislike Obama’s use of drones for a reason like you hate seeing young children blown to bits, that doesn’t work since 1. It is legal. 2. Anwar Alwaki 3. Go fuck yourself.
And whatever you do, do not ever, and I mean never ever, say Obama is continuing many of the disastrous Bush policies because many vote with their uterus. Even the “men” here.
NR
@dmbeaster: That’s right. Remember, progressives, the Democratic party is entitled to your vote. No matter what they do, you have to vote for them, because they’re Democrats. If you don’t, you are “withholding” or “stealing” a vote from them and thereby helping the Republicans win. Because we all know that in America, candidates start from a high number of votes and count down. They don’t start from zero and count up.
Zandar
And so much for my stalker.
Martin
@Karl:
1) Be honest about the nature of the problem.
2) Be honest about the President’s authority, Congresses, etc.
3) Volunteer the options to what the President did and be honest about their prospects.
Let’s take the Al Awlaki drone strike. Was he a terrorist? Yeah, I don’t think that’s too controversial. Was he a US citizen – I think that’s less clear than people admitted. Al Awlaki volunteered that he was at war with the US. One interpretation of that (not an unreasonable one, but not a conclusive one) was that admission declared a voluntary abdication of citizenship. But let’s say it doesn’t. How does the President then deal with this US citizen terrorist?
A) Don’t.
B) Try to arrest/capture him, in a foreign country, where we don’t have access to him.
C) Drone strike
I don’t think there are any others. Now, if he’s a successful terrorist (and he wasn’t incompetent given that we only stopped some of his efforts due to informants) then I don’t think A is an option. We might fail at B and C, but if Americans died due to a terrorist attack and the President said ‘yeah, we knew he was a terrorist but we didn’t do anything because he’s a citizen’, I think it’d be some time before you saw a Democrat again in the White House, and for understandably good reason.
B is the choice we took with OBL. I agree with that choice, but you don’t always have the ability to do that. And even doing it opens up other problems – not the least of which is that you’re violating someone else’s laws/treaties with that option. It trades one problem for another. And what’s being asked here is different from what we did with OBL – we’re asked to preserve Awlaki’s constitutional rights while we do it. So, it’s not a military operation at all and you can’t just shoot him in the head. That’s no different than a drone strike, which takes us to C.
It seems to me that what people really wanted was some kind of due-process-like mechanism to revoke his citizenship, and then it’d be okay. Now, Congress was involved in that strike decision – the gang of eight signed off on it, so Congress was consulted. Clearly that wasn’t adequate. Should Obama have gone to the courts? Maybe, but there’s really no process for doing that. Revoking citizenship is purely a State Department task for which there is no due process – and we have no way of knowing if that happened or not for Awlaki (not that it necessarily matters). Now, we may not like that, but that’s how the laws are written. Maybe Congress should pass some laws here. They had the opportunity to say ‘wait, I think we need legislation here’ when they were consulted, and they passed that option by. Should Obama have insisted on legislation before acting? Well, that doesn’t make sense at all given that Congress already gave him approval presumably under existing law.
So, what should Obama have done?
Did anyone who complained about the action bring any of those things up? Nope. It was all ‘Obama wants to assassinate any US citizen at will, he’s worse than Bush on civil liberties!’ No exploration of the options he had, including the consequences of no action. No exploration of what would have been a better solution – just complaining that they don’t like it.
Same thing with OBL, and Libya, and DADT and so on.
amk
@gaz:
You don’t get the CD of it all, do you ?
gaz
@El Tiburon: okay, that made me LOL
NR
@amk: Haha. Wrong, dumbass. I voted for Obama in both the primary and the general. Try another one – maybe “firebagger” would work better? Oops, I don’t read FDL either. Dammit!
Sly
Tough Choice™
The decision a politician makes to further my own policy preference and that elicits a political cost on that politician. Any decision made by the same politician to further the policy preferences of someone else and that also elicits a political cost doesn’t count.
lacp
@Karl: A bit late to the show, dude – that shit’s already been signed off on. You can bitch all you want, but it won’t make any difference.
And what were your expectations, anyway? There are significant (at least theoretically) differences on some policies between Democrats and Republicans, but both parties are owned by the banksters. Christ, Senator Durbin came right out and said it.
NR
@Martin: We captured John Walker Lindh (AKA the “American Taliban”) and he is serving time in prison.
shortstop
@gaz:
Since you seem to need that reaction so very, very badly, I guess I hope you get it, but I would be extremely surprised to learn that you engender that amount of passion or even interest in anyone here…with the possible exception of Burns, and then on a totally different topic.
Loviatar
@Forum Transmitted Disease:
See here is the problem with your analogy; usually when you put out a fire it stays out. Also, you can always rebuild whats been lost in a fire.
Cancer on the other hand, even a cancerous mole, you can never be too sure that you’ve got it all and there always a more than reasonable chance its will return and/or effect other organs in the body.
—–
I know what I’m getting with a Republican president. I will probably survive him and I can fix what he breaks.
A bad Democratic president can be a lot worse, because they give the Republicans the excuse to be even more extreme (Tea Baggers). They impact areas of policies that Republicans would normally fear to go (Social Security) and they defang the Democratic party by giving the authoritarians within the party the wherewithal to say, just shut up and fall in line.
FlipYrWhig
@Karl: Voice your criticism proudly. Try at the same time to avoid explaining the thing you didn’t like as proof of the administration’s evil, ineptness, or corruption. I don’t think anyone minds, conceptually, a statement like “Obama really fucked up on this one.” What people mind is a statement like “Obama really fucked up on this one because he’s a conservative corporatist who hates working people and wipes his ass with the Constitution, and I’ve seen it coming since he had Donnie McClurkin sing at a campaign event, so how do you like it now, chump?” That’s when it turns into the political equivalent of Red Sox fans making fun of C.C. Sabathia’s waistline. Yes, we get it, you like another team, bully for you.
gaz
@shortstop: actually, apparently I do: I’m basing the behavior on the response some of you so lovingly threw my direction, just the other day
it’s fun.
and now, because I said it again you are underscoring my point by flaming me anyway. I love it.
keep it up champ. I’m not quite tired of you yet.
NR
@Loviatar:
This, exactly. When Democratic presidents push right-wing policy, it’s a lot worse than when Republicans do it, because a lot of so-called “progressives” will support the policy just because a Democrat is pushing it.
Remember that when George W. Bush tried to fuck with Social Security, the left fought him. Hard. And won.
But when Obama offers the GOP $650 billion in Social Security and Medicare cuts, way way too many on the left not only didn’t see it as a big deal, but actively shouted down those who did.
amk
@NR: So you still troll greg’s blog ?
Some Loser
Does people think that General Stuck is the only self-professed “Obot” on Balloon-Juice? It seems people just immediately assume we all act like Stuck or Zander. A wrong assumption. While our beliefs and priorities are debatebly similar, we do approach matters differently.
While we are on the subject, why do people take so much delight in upsetting Firebaggers or Obots? Aren’t we pretty much on the same team (even if we have some disagreements especially on priorities)? Shouldn’t we be devoting our rage at Republicans?
NR
@amk: I have no idea what you’re talking about.
Martin
@NR: John Walker Lindh was in a country that we were establishing control in. It was a legitimate war zone. That’s not where Al Awlaki was. He was in a foreign country where we have no troops and with a government that had no ability to provide us with assistance in his capture as Al Awlaki was at war with the government there as well.
And you do a nice job of illustrating my point about not being honest about how different the circumstances were, or are you advocating that we should have invaded Yemen to make the circumstances comparable?
amk
@NR: yeah, I knew you wouldn’t. Liar & coward afraid to own his own words.
Martin
@Martin: Oh, yeah, and we seek JWL out for capture. We just sort of wound up with him and then realized who he was. Again, a totally different situation.
Be honest about these things in your criticism and some of us will take you more seriously.
gaz
@Some Loser: I didn’t say all, and I never meant all, but it’s more than stuck.
Some Loser
@gaz:
You have some seriously low standards if you seriously consider the comment shortstop made about you flaming. Jeez. A post can be critical of you without it being a flame.
FlipYrWhig
@Martin: And, to top it off, there’s the assumption that there was ever a thing to do that _wouldn’t_ have a downside. Yes, by doing Something bad shit happened, so he should have done Something Else. OK, fine. Wouldn’t Something Else also have a downside? It’s just tedious how often we have to go through this routine. Maybe instead of sucking for 20 years, the Pittsburgh Pirates should have had better hitters and better pitchers and spend their money more wisely. All right, point taken. What’s the best way to get there now — make some trades, change the management of the minors, something like that? That’s a bit more important than continually lamenting how it will always have been stupid to keep Andy Van Slyke instead of Barry Bonds in 1993.
NR
@amk: Why don’t you provide a link to these “words” of mine you want me to “own.”
Or you could just shut the fuck up. That works too.
El Tiburon
@Martin:
Would you be so kind as to include a link backing up these assertions? I am not being glib or a dick. I’ve never seen anything other than administration “sources” stating he was a terrorist. And he wasn’t a US citizen? Kind of like Obama is not a citizen? (Ok, that IS me being a dick)
And would you care to define “terrorist”?
Deal with what? What did he do? And do you not see the extremely slippery slope you are sliding down? What you are saying is this: Be careful what you say and do, because the President can now kill you.
Who was it in the George W. Bush administration who said the exact same thing – sans the “because the Prez will kill you” portion?
Just Some Fuckhead
I hadda go to lunch, what’d I miss?
Trick question! Nothing, of course.
FlipYrWhig
@NR: Still with this. It’s ridiculous with you. How many times have you been told about the difference between kinds of cuts? And you refuse to even acknowledge that it might be an eentsy, weentsy issue in the way you discuss policy options. It’s been going on for months if not years by now. I’ve never seen anything like it from someone who wasn’t a parody troll.
Some Loser
@gaz:
I didn’t just mean you.
But sure. Lets go.
Lets play a game:
Name one other Obot besides Stuck who responds angrily towards anyone who makes a statement about Obama.
schrodinger's cat
@amk: I saw your reply to my comments, thanks for the kind words. I just dropped off my husband to take a bus that will take him to the airport, he will be on a flight to India this evening. I am debating whether I should go, my husband’s family is very strict and ultra religious and my MIL doesn’t particularly care for me. I don’t want to be the center of any drama, which has happened on my previous trips to India.
Some Loser
@El Tiburon:
Put on your tin-foil hats everyone. We can’t trust the government anymore. Anything they tell us is instantly suspect. Like job reports and shit. They are just lying to us to control us. They just want to kill citizens at random. Ignore the sympathizers!
NR
@FlipYrWhig: I’ve responded to it every single time it’s come up.
But why don’t you explain how cutting people’s Social Security–a direct monetary payout that goes straight to beneficiaries–isn’t really a cut.
amk
@El Tiburon: You sound just like those teabbagers – ooo, Obama is coming after my guns, Obama is gonna kill us all. And of course, you couldn’t help yourself cracking that birther joke. And yet you wonder, why people here piss on you.
@NR: Nope asshole. I am not gonna go back and look for your trolling in other blogs. You had the same whiny talking points then and now is proof enough for me.
NR
@amk:
So in other words, you’re full of shit.
Not surprising.
gaz
@Some Loser: Yes, we’re on the same team. In fact, I’d say most of us are not one or the other.
The camps disagree on things. For my part, I tend to disagree with the firebaggers far more than the Obots, and that’s probably mostly the bad taste in my mouth from all of the whiners not voting back in 2010. I’ll never forgive that.
With the Obots, I’m usually sympathetic to the position until they decide that qualified criticism of Obama means I don’t support him, or that I am some sort of ratfucker.
I’ll always criticize an administration when they deserve it. I screamed about Clinton and the Telecommunications Decency Act, the unilateral bombing of iraq’s infrastructure, and much more, as well.
I know leaders aren’t perfect. They’re people. I can support a politician even if I disagree vehemently with some of their policies and positions.
I’m not withholding my vote from Obama. He gets my electoral vote. I don’t vote major party on prez tickets. I just don’t, and anyone can disagree with that, but it’s going to be a tough case to make that it will do anything to effect the outcome of this next prez election, any more than if I did vote for him. That’s why a 3rd party will get my vote. On state and local elections, I vote reliably D (or incumbent left parties, like Green, when we’ve had them in local seats)
cheers.
amk
@schrodinger’s cat: I think it’s a wise decision. Funerals here are pretty tense and emotional events. I am sure hubby appreciates your sentiments about your FIL and that’s what matters most, right?
Schlemizel
Whats the problem? With so many assholes dragging us rightward at some point in time there has to be somebody willing to say “this is not far enough left”.
But instead this thread will be full of butthurt obot/firebagger bullshit. It is possible to disagree with people who will still help win elections for candidates you support.
amk
@NR: Yes, I am. Now beat it, scram, vamoose.
geg6
@El Tiburon:
Go fuck yourself with a rusty pitchfork, asshole. I know equal pay means nothing to you, but the majority of voters in this country now have the possibility of being paid equally to morons like you. Fuck you, fuck you, fuck you. And one more fuck you in honor of a great and brave woman, Lily Ledbetter. Guys like you are the poison of the Democratic Party. You are no progressive or liberal or whatever you think you are. Economic justice and women’s rights are a joke to you. You sound like a Republican.
gaz
@Schlemizel: This. 1000 times this.
fasteddie9318
@Schlemizel:
That’s true, though from Zandar’s perspective it would help if the people who disagree with him would realize what useless sacks of shit they all are and, geez, do they have to say such nasty things about him all the time? Lighten up, amirite?
schrodinger's cat
@amk: IDK, I think I am damned if go and damned if I don’t. MIL and SIL are not fun to deal with in the best of circumstances but I also want to be there for my husband. Well I am not quite sure what I will do yet.
Corner Store Operator
@FlipYrWhig: While you may be right about DK commenters feelings on Carolyn Kennedy (I know you’re right about Gillibrand) Markos launched a crusade against her (based on anti-dynasty politics).
FlipYrWhig
@El Tiburon: Fine, so your position is, 1. Do nothing. Yes, doing something rather than nothing has many implications and occasions many anxieties, all of which you have spelled out many times. But the core of the debate is actually something more like whether the cost relative to benefit of doing nothing is better on balance than the cost relative to benefit of doing something.
And then, a corollary of sorts. On top of all that there’s the extended debate over whether Obama claims expansive executive prerogatives because he’s drunk on power or whether he does it because the legislature isn’t inclined to do its own part constitutionally speaking. I have a sinkhole on my property. If it gets much bigger it might become dangerous. It’s up to me to do something about it, but, let’s say, I can’t afford it or just don’t feel like it. If the city comes in and dumps fill into the hole, do I have the right to complain about the sinister implications of their action and their egregious breach of my property rights? I don’t think I’d find many sympathetic ears to that argument. And IMHO a lot of the executive-power issues under Obama have been cases where the legislature just doesn’t want to be helpful, so Obama sees powers lying around and uses them as he sees fit. There’s still much to criticize about what happens next, but the overarching Greenwald-n-friends critique about how Obama just loves executive power ignores the vital separation-of-powers context, and does so often because it feels good to prove how willing they are to bash their own side on principle.
NR
@amk: No.
Sly
@Martin:
Awlaki’s citizenship status is a red herring. You have the right to due process by virtue of being within the jurisdiction of the United States, not because you are a citizen of the same. The NYPD cannot legally kill a Peruvian national visiting his extended family in Brooklyn.
Catsy
@lamh35:
See, this sort of thing actually makes me smile, as annoying as Stewart’s false-equivalency schtick can be on occasion.
It means they’ve got nothing. Jon Stewart is a professional comedian with a team of good writers, on one of the funniest talk shows in the country–and if this is his go-to material for riffing off of Obama, I’d say the prez is doing pretty well.
shortstop
@El Tiburon: Hmmm. Given that you demonstrated in a previous thread that you’re completely ignorant of what the Lilly Ledbetter Act actually contains–after dismissing it in nearly every comment you’ve written for years–I’d think you’d be shy about bringing it up again and reminding everyone of your humiliation.
@schrodinger’s cat: I understand your dilemma. What does your husband want you to do? Will he tell you honestly?
amk
@schrodinger’s cat: Yes, it’s a tough situation. When is he coming back ? I ask because there are some rites he will be expected to perform after the funeral and this could be anywhere from 7 to 15 days.
Some Loser
@Sly:
It is not a red herring.
An American life is just more valuable than any other life. Ask Osama Bin Laden. There isn’t much difference between him and Al-Awaki from where I am standing, but one of these people’s death was decried.
shortstop
@Catsy: Especially since Stewart is not unaware of how you build databases and interest with younger voters.
FlipYrWhig
@NR: There could be dollar-value, real purchasing power cuts to Social Security benefits, yes. It also might be the case that Social Security benefits are scheduled to increase faster than inflation would warrant, so the “cut” would take the form of reducing a bigger-than-necessary increase. Is that _true_? I have no idea, and in fact I would be quite skeptical. But I can certainly imagine a scenario where politicians decide that when push came to shove it would be a better, fairer allocation of resources to take a raise originally marked for retirement benefits and apply it instead to, say, increased investment in medical research or public education. So I don’t think that it’s wise to have a hair trigger about Social Security Cuts such that every cut is starving oldsters to death, any more so than it’s wise to treat Defense Cuts such that every cut is leaving the nation defenseless before terrorists.
gaz
@Some Loser:
Angry Black Lady (who I overwhelmingly like, despite me disagreeing with some of her politics)
magurakurin (not seen much if any of him/her, other than lately)
But to really get a nice list together i’d have to go all the way back to the nefarious BJ NDAA 3 day flamewar.
But there’s 3 above, off the top of my head (including stuck and a front pager for extra credit).
schrodinger's cat
@amk: Two weeks from the coming Monday. Yes I have been told that there is some religious stuff to be done on the 10th day and 13th day. What I read on the intertubes about Hindu last rites, sounded positively gory. He is the only son, so he has to perform the rites.
Poor poor husband, he is going to land in India by Friday night and the funeral is on Saturday, no rest for the weary.
P.S. Sorry BJers to bring you into this. I apologize. My fambly drama let me show you it.
Now I am off to clean some closets because I can’t get any work done.
FlipYrWhig
@Schlemizel: I want someone willing to say that “this is not far enough left” and do so with some awareness that some of the reason why things might not be far enough left might have to do with the proportion of the populace that likes things farther left than they are. Otherwise “this is not far enough left” becomes approximately as useful as “this is not Christian enough” or “this is not enough linked to the real value of precious metals.”
Robert Green
so hard to know what to do as a progressive. i’m told that i’m not allowed to try to move the president to the left by proselytizing, or having a loud opinion. i’m not allowed to threaten to withhold my vote either, because (and this is true) there is no other viable option for me electorially. so i guess i should just stfu and take whatever punishment (tim geithner, larry summers, drone attacks, no transparency in gov’t, shutting down whistleblowers, coddling blue dogs, coddling “moderate” republicans, firing van jones, opening up social security to destruction, not cutting the pentagon budget, allowing green jobs initiatives to fall by the wayside, not getting enough progressive judges on the bench, being able to kill americans with no due process, a continually advancing police state, cracking down on medical marijuana, coddling dictators, refusing to step in to save israel from itself, AND MFERS I COULD GO ON FOR A GODDAMN WHILE). just take it. shut up. zandar told me so. i am not smart enough to both hold these opinions and know tha ti have to vote for obama given the alternative.
fuck that. fuck zandar. what a useless asshole. not only will i vote for obama, i will create messaging for him, i will (and have) fundraise, write big checks, get others to do so, and YET STILL BE PISSED THAT OBAMA SOLD PROGRESSIVES WAY DOWN THE RIVER.
it’s called being capable of having more than one thought at a time. zandar, when you feel like joining people with slightly evolved brains, try again.
gaz
@FlipYrWhig: From a policy standpoint, I’m fairly certain on an issue by issue basis – particularly with respect to tax policy, domestic spending, etc, that a large number of americans are further to the left than we are now.
Bush Tax Cuts. Tax Hike on the wealthy. Cutting subsidies for Oil companies, etc.
(And then there’s closing GITMO, and other things)
Adding: I’d like to hear Obama campaigning on these types issues this cycle.
amk
@schrodinger’s cat: LOL. There is nothing gory about them. Never trust what you read in intertubes. FYI, I think cremation is much more environmental friendly than the burial. :)
I lost my dad when I was very young and being the eldest, had to do all the rites while simultaneously worrying about the future of our family. That was 18 years ago. Part of life. Your hubby will do just fine. Though it’s cute that you worry so much about him. He is a lucky man.
Patricia Kayden
I had to laugh when I read this post. Never knew about the shenanigans at NetRoots of yesteryear. I guess I don’t spend enough time reading Daily Kos.
And yes, I’ve met several lefties who are disappointed in President Obama. I hope they realize the nightmare that RomneyBot would be if he ever got into the White House. Their disappointment will pale in comparison to their horror if that ever were to happen.
Martin
@El Tiburon: We know from the Abdulmutallab trial.
I think one problem I often see on issues like this is that evidence that only comes from the government is dismissed, when the only possible source of evidence is the government. Who else is supposed to provide that evidence? The printer bomb evidence didn’t even come from the US government, but that too is dismissed, as are his connections to multiple 9/11 bombers, and other terrorists. Not to mention his own declarations.
Have you read 8 USC § 1481?
No. I don’t. The President didn’t do this to unnamed individuals, or categories of individuals. This was done to a named individual, who was reviewed as a named individual by Congress, and approved by 4 members of the opposition party, plus members of his cabinet. I honestly don’t see that translating into Greenwalds name showing up on the list and everyone saying ‘yeah, go ahead and kill him’.
Ronzoni Rigatoni
@taylormattd: Frankly, I know where Freddy the Farmer is comin’ from since I did the same damned thing tryin’ t’get John Anderson the 5% in the Year of our Lords Ronald Reagan, A.D. Basically, we knew Carter wasn’t gonna make it here, so it made not a whit of difference either way. I just wish I had this kinda prescience at Gulfstream.
13th Generation
@Some Loser:
Eemom
Caz
Boss bitch
Raven
The dude who’s “married” to Minnesota grrl.
There are many more, all conspicuously absent on this thread.
the Conster
@Patricia Kayden:
If only the disappointed lefties were as committed to their ideology as the teabaggers were, and got elected to the House. Imagine what might happen if they shut their whiny face holes enough to stop whinging about Obama enough to get elected, and PUSHED OBAMA FROM THE LEFT with some legislation he could sign.
gaz
@Patricia Kayden: I’m someone that’s sort of lukewarm on Obama (he’s more centrist/functionary-technocrat than I’d like, but that’s to be expected – or at least what I’m used too).
Obama was and still is the best option we have, and he’s done a lot of good, especially considering congress. He’s not my pony, but I’ll never get a pony. He’s made some things very dear to me worse (immigration enforcement), although I hold out hope that his next term will be better in that regard. We need reform, not MOAR of the same.
If it came down to it, I’d vote for him again (I did in 2008 because I was worried my electoral vote might be at risk – only time I’ve voted major party on a prez ticket was for Obama).
Romney is not worthy of even a tour* of the white house, much less a seat at the desk in the oval office.
ETA: (* I’d be worried he might steal something)
Some Loser
@gaz:
I was lurking when ABL was posting here regularly. She was an Obot, but she didn’t attack people just because they said something about Obama. She was/is an unapologetic Obot, though. Most of the time ABL flammed someone, it was over the discussion of women’s rights and racism. So I am not sure why she made the list.
I am familiar with magurakurin, but I don’t remember her/his posting habits.
That is the standard we are working with here. We are not including people because they sided with Obama on an issue and argued in favor of him. We are looking for people who flame people for no other reasons than they criticized him. General Stuck and Zander are the only two that I can think of.
amk
@Martin:
lmao. The distrust of their own gobinment by the loony left mirrors that of teabaggers. No wonder firebagger queen jane aligned herself with grover fucking norquist.
FlipYrWhig
@gaz: That’s true, but it tends to be offset by fear mongering about who benefits, and by Republicans’ malleability, i.e. their willingness to embrace whatever they’re told to embrace by Fox News (LOL my autocorrect tried to make that “Fossil News”). They support ideas until they’re told that they’re Democrat Ideas, in which case they’re irretrievably linked to welfare for shiftless minorities. And I haven’t seen a lot of willingness for Republicans to pull the plug on their local Republican reps just because they don’t support the more liberal agenda the public describes to pollsters. That’s the bind.
Some Loser
@13th Generation:
List does not just include people who are Obots. It deals with people who flame people for no reason other than they criticize Obama.
I don’t think anyone you mentioned even fits on that list besides eemom.
gaz
@Some Loser: Well you included stuck. My experience with stuck is that by your criteria, he wouldn’t have made that list either.
ETA: We’re having a problem with a rubber ruler here I think (not a criticism, just an observation). This line of conversation is so incredibly subjective that it makes it near impossible to discuss it without going down one hell of a rabbit hole. Everyone has good days and bad days.
fasteddie9318
Alright, since there’s no open thread and this one has gone off the rails, can I ask a question of any Celiac sufferers reading this thread? Do people who go on fad gluten-free diets and then act like gluten is rat poison (yes, and when humans started making bread ten-fucking-thousand years ago it was the Darkest Day in History) ever piss you off? Because they piss me off, and I can only imagine that they’d piss me off even more if I were legitimately afflicted with a serious condition that forced me to give up eating things that I liked. Note that I’m not talking about all people who go gluten-free, just the ones who then go around acting like you’re pouring toxic sludge down your gullet any time you eat a piece of goddamn toast.
I hope this helps us heal our fractured community and refocus our rage at the true enemy, people who act like gluten is the devil.
NR
@amk: Obama aligned himself with Grover Norquist, too, when he extended the Bush tax cuts.
But look! Jane Hamsher!
rea
And what’s being asked here is different from what we did with OBL – we’re asked to preserve Awlaki’s constitutional rights while we do it.
Except that constitutional due process rights apply to all “persons,” not just “citizens,” so that OBL had the same constitutional rights as Awlaki.
Now, as it happens, I think the Constitution permitted what we did to both of those guys. But the notion that Awlaki was entitled to a trial, and Osama wasn’t, is just nonsense.
lacp
@fasteddie9318: Do these people accuse you of gluteny?
Some Loser
@gaz:
I think that is the point I trying to make.
General Stuck
@Some Loser:
Well fuck. Try to stay out this clusterfuck of shithead trolls, and get dragged in anyways. Let me clue you in, I flame people because they post bullshit, and when I flame them, it is accompanied with making a cogent argument against whatever criticism is leveled at Obama that I think is unfair. every single time, or about anyone. I was here before ABL, and mostly by my lonesome speaking up about the cesspool of racist crappola being spewed on this blog by good white liberals mostly during the HCR debate. Now shove your stupid up your ass for no other reason than taking cheap shots at a commenter who wasn’t participating in this thread. This blog has become a troll sewer, and this thread proves it.
The psychos are now making enemies lists. jeebus.
Some Loser
@NR:
Okay, I never asked before, but what was so bad about the Bush Tax Cuts deal?
FlipYrWhig
@amk: That’s because “anti-government” thinking is not, and hasn’t been over history, neatly mappable to the political left and right. Black Panthers, Weathermen, David Koresh and militia kooks all dread government surveillance and police power. Progressives, on the other hand, tend to like it when the government orders people and businesses to behave more justly, for instance by not polluting or by having to serve African Americans. The Progressive Era is all about government “meddling,” really, and I kind of like it that way. Anti-government wariness verging on paranoia isn’t inherently a liberal article of faith, although it can converge with liberalism in cases like warrantless wiretapping and COINTELPRO-like Hooverism. To be way oversimplistic, some people are more anti-authoritarian than they are liberal in the bleeding-heart sense. For me, I skew towards wanting the government to have enough coercive power to advance justice, fairness, and sympathy.
Catsy
@Some Loser:
Adjusted for accuracy. Now I believe the list of names will look more like you seem to expect it to.
gaz
@FlipYrWhig: I definitely feel you there. The thing I think that the majority of democrats (in leadership) fail to do is to POUND THE ISSUES. They just don’t do good enough job of that. Or maybe it’s just that the issues are boring.
Then again, maybe the problem is an ancient and intractable one: You can always exploit fear and tribalism to get people to engage in crab pot politics. It makes it very easy to then pick their pockets while they fight among themselves. Yay!
In all honesty, I’m not sure how to fix that.
fasteddie9318
@lacp: No, but I think there should be a “Stand Your Gluten” law to allow me to assault them with a stale French baguette. Or maybe a gun, if it will get the NRA involved. Who can I contact at ALEC about this?
kindness
My God you people are still here? I got bored hours ago.
lacp
@fasteddie9318: You’ll have to pry this bagel from my cold, dead hands?
Suffern ACE
@NR: Yeah. When liberals say “Bush Tax Cuts” it means “Rich guys taxes.” When normal people hear “Bush Tax Cuts” they hear “My tax cut, even though it was really kinda small”. The aggregate impact on revenue of those small little middle class tax cuts is huge. But liberals like to pretend that the middle class increases matter. Convince me that the Bush Tax Cuts for the middle class are unpopular and raising them to help close the deficit won’t create another irrational outburst of angry taxpayer revolt at the voters box and I’ll believe that people have aggreed that “Bush Tax Cuts” are something toxic that only the rich people support.
Christ, most of the country thinks their taxes have gone up already and that is the opposite of reality. Image what will happen when you actually get around to increasing middle class taxes. I’m sure people will be dancing around the maypole when they find out “Bush Tax Cuts” included them.
gaz
@kindness: I’ve got better weed than you. ;)
Forum Transmitted Disease
@geg6: Um, he is one. Ratfucks here under at least three different handles I know of.
General Stuck
@General Stuck:
And let me add. I am not always right, for sure, but I try very very hard to not make assertions I can’t back up/ I don’t think it is untoward to expect same from the other commenters here.
FlipYrWhig
@Some Loser: And keep in mind that Obama said he wanted to end the special upper-income tax cuts, barnstormed about it, got the people on his side about it, and still came up against a Democratic party that wouldn’t do it his way, including, according to press accounts, liberal stalwarts Barbara Boxer and particular Netroots darling Russ Feingold. That can HARDLY be laid at Obama’s feet. But that doesn’t stop people from continually doing it. See also Mo, comma Git, closing of.
rea
Obama aligned himself with Grover Norquist, too, when he extended the Bush tax cuts.
No, trading with someone isn’t allying with him. I would rather the upper end Bush tax cuts had been allowed to expire, but I was okay with trading that for DADT repeal, ratification of the arms treaty with Russia, extension of unemployment benefits, and extension of the payroll tax holiday. You think we could have gotten a better deal? How?
This is a classic example of why we ordinary leftists get annoyed with you firebaggers. You don’t tell the truth about the options that were actually available at the time, or about what the administration actually managed to accomplish. Instead, you insist that the adminstration ought to have tried something that plainly wouldn’t work, and ought to have made it work by shear willpower.
singfoom
Oh boy, another “No True Progressive” thread.
You know, let’s just agree to live and let live. Some people can like a politician in general and have specific criticisms of their policies and/or their decisions.
And some people can’t stand that other people have a different view on said person.
Fighting about it and calling each other names accomplishes what again?
A delusional sense of superiority?
amk
@FlipYrWhig:
And I firmly believe that Obama believes strongly in that type of government. Hence, my intolerance towards shitheads, who are posing as ‘progressives’, painting an untrue picture of him.
gaz
@FlipYrWhig:
Well said.
General Stuck
@Catsy:
thank you
amk
@Catsy: Well said.
the Conster
@Catsy:
[[claps]] Ha ha ha, that about covers all of the firebagging wankery. Well done.
FlipYrWhig
@Suffern ACE: It seems to me that America is totally boned on taxes because of how bad so many people are at math. I think people are so afraid of The Taxman waiting to smite them for a minor mistake that they won’t do their own taxes, and thus they have no idea how it works or what they pay, or understand that if they overpay taxes weekly they get a refund when they file. It’s not a black art, it’s a bunch of addition and subtraction and a table. But I feel like people tend to think they don’t have the money they need, so the government must be taking too much of it from them every paycheck, and then you have to outwit them to get it back on April 15.
Some Loser
@General Stuck:
Calm down, man. I ain’t got a problem with you personally. I just think you are way too overzealous when it comes to defending Obama even if I think you are right the majority of the time. You just get mad over some of the most trivial bullshit, though. And sometimes, you’re just plain wrong.
I will apologize, though. I didn’t mean to insult you. I didn’t even think I was being insulting; I was just making an observation on your behavior. If you think I went over the line, I am sorry.
General Stuck
@Some Loser:
You sound like Rush Limbaugh apologizing. And I am calm. It would look different otherwise/
Eli Rabett
CPAC. Screw off
Some Loser
@General Stuck:
I thought I did a little better than Rush Limbaugh.
gaz
@General Stuck: Enemy list? whooo boy. I have enemies. You’re certainly not one, though we’ve certainly duked it out on a few threads .
I’m sorry if that line of the thread came across that way – originally it started out as I saw it as (obot v firebagger) and I’d say you were an obot – hell that doesn’t even mean I don’t like you – I luvs me some ABL and she’s a total obot, yet one of my favorite FP’ers.
As soon as Some Loser reiterated what he was asking, I made the comment that you wouldn’t even make the list given the qualifications.
I never intended that to be an enemies list. wow. If you took it that way, I apologize. The last thing I meant was for it to be in * that * spirit. I understand you may have read it that way, given some of the comments surrounding it, but seriously man – reading those 3 or so on the thread, together will make it clear. Apologies for my part in muddying the water – that wasn’t my intent. I even walked it back too, before I ever saw your comment about enemies lists. I wasn’t attacking you, other than suggesting you are an obot. And honestly the term gets bandied about so much (along with firebagger) that well – it’s hard to read much into it. Those terms can be applied to nearly any regular here at one point or another – and have been.
Sincerely,
a firebagger ;)
AA+ Bonds
Liberals have strange ideas about what motivates the left
I mean, the Iowa caucuses? really?
AA+ Bonds
@rea:
Those are not leftist positions, “extension of the payroll tax holiday”
schrodinger's cat
@shortstop: I think he will. He is going to take the temperature of the situation and will call me and then we will decide.
AA+ Bonds
Leftists aren’t as hot as liberals on President Obama because we don’t trust the ruling class of a system of cradle-to-grave exploitation
I mean, we’re right, too, but it is a difference of opinion as well :)
General Stuck
@gaz:
Don’t apologize for saying what you believe. It would be nice though, if done when your persona for derision is on a thread. That used to be the rule around here, but like a lot things has gone to shit the past 3 years.
gaz
@General Stuck: I do NOT believe you are my enemy.
Karl
So I go to lunch, and I’ve missed an entire conversation about my comment.
Here are my thoughts on the matter:
Bush I promised no new taxes. He raised taxes. Enough of his base voted for Ross Perot, or nobody, to make him lose his job.
Today, Republicans will set the building on fire before agreeing to raising taxes. Any republican who supports raising taxes is immediately primaried.
It sure would be fucking nice if our Democratic politicians feared losing their jobs every time they assassinated an American citizen, even muttered under their breath about reducing a woman’s right to her own body, letting wall street thugs off the hook, or cutting social security.
There is a list of things I am NOT willing to endure to see Obama reelected. We can have real, productive conversations about the contents of that list, and what should or should not be on it. I’m not sure what’s on it myself, and it’s my list. But if your list is null, then YOU are the fucking problem.
Politicians must pay a price for betraying us. The relevant discussion point here is where that line is, not whether it exists.
NR
@Some Loser: $700 billion that could have been used to help any number of people was given to the rich instead. That’s what was so bad about it.
JWL
@Middlewest: So, you contend that Obama was playing 72 degree chess and Boehner, and the GOP never knew what hit it?
You’ve got a lot of nerve to call me pig ignorant, you Midwest hick.
Catsy
@AA+ Bonds:
Yeah, I mean it wasn’t like anything happened at the Iowa caucuses in 2008 that might’ve pissed off a whole ton of Hillary Clinton supporters who’ve never forgiven Obama since.
rea
@AA+ Bonds: Those are not leftist positions, “extension of the payroll tax holiday”
So, it’s a leftist position to raise taxes on working people (not the rich) during a recession? I was not aware of that–I could have sworn that was rightwingnut austerity.
Some Loser
@NR:
What about the working- and middle-class people who benefited from the tax expansion? What about the other stuff negotiated in the deal like unemployment insurance and payroll tax cuts for working families? Isn’t that more than what rich people may or may not get? The deal created a huge relief for people which is very important in a recession.
NR
@Some Loser:
These questions assume that the only way to get these things (and btw, the payroll tax cut is not a net positive; it may be good in the short term, but over the long term it will dramatically weaken Social Security) was to extend the Bush tax cuts for the rich. Obama would love for you to believe that that’s true, but it’s not.
You let the Bush tax cuts expire and then you put up the things you want as separate bills and dare the Republicans to vote against them. If they don’t, you win. If they do vote against good, popular policies, you beat them over the head with it in the next election. Then, when a lot of them have been voted out of office, you pass the things you want to pass. Pretty simple.
Some Loser
@NR:
Well, we tried your way before. A lot, actually. The public does not seem to care about it. In fact, the Republicans will beat us over the head for good policies. And then we lose elections.
But that is besides the point. What does it matter that rich people get some temporary relief, too? We can always deal with them later. This helped real people. You say we could better with less. Well, maybe. But that doesn’t mean that the whole thing isn’t good.
FlipYrWhig
@NR: What you are describing is EXACTLY TO THE LETTER what OBAMA WANTED, talked about, and tried to accomplish for months. The people who undercut him were, as I said, the Democratic senators who were in close reelection battles, including Boxer and Feingold. You’re messing up your aim and peeing all over the seat.
Some Loser
(Ugh. I wanted to be 256. One of my favorite numbers.)
I got to go; Homestuck updated today.
FlipYrWhig
@NR: Senate Democrats, posed with the options you presented, said they didn’t wanna. They feared that by doing so they would be blamed for raising taxes and would lose. What’s your solution to that? Because it’s kind of important to making happen what you claim you want to see happen, you know, people in your party actually voting for it.
It doesn’t matter how much of a no-brainer an idea is or how popular it is if politicians refuse to vote for it out of stubbornness or stupidity.
feebog
Whew, I go out for a haircut and some shopping and you all turn this into a marathon. Look, I will enthusiastically work for and vote for Obama this year. Mrs. Feebog and I have already sent some money his way. But that doesn’t mean I condone or approve of everything he has done. In particular, the continued drone strikes inside Pakistan are clearly taking the lives of innocents. And I think Obama could and should have pushed harder for the public option in the ACA.
Those are valid criticisms in my view, that do nothing to detract from the outstanding accomplishments. But if we don’t continue to push back, even in an election year, things we want to see accomplished get pushed down the priority list, or taken off alltogether.
FlipYrWhig
@AA+ Bonds: What proportion of the American populace is “leftists,” and how do they intend to end capitalism as we know it? I mean, in grad school in the humanities a solid third of the student body dallies with Marxism, and the closest they ever got to ending capitalism was getting extra pay for teaching fellowships. Which is commendable, but not exactly radicalism on the march.
the Conster
@feebog:
What the fuck is wrong with you?
The public option never. stood. a. chance. What does “push harder” even mean?
FlipYrWhig
@the Conster: The argument is that he should have done more to push for it even if he knew it didn’t stand a chance, because at least that way the idea would have gotten a fuller airing. My feeling is that it seemed like the harder he pushed for anything in the bill, the more the ConservaDems looked for the exits, but it’s a not unreasonable view of what the strategy could have been.
Karl
@the Conster: The public option never stood a chance because there was no political price to pay for opposing it. If Obama had been willing to support primary challenges against Democratic Senators who voted against it, maybe we’d be complaining about single payer instead of public option.
“It’s not the ones we lose that bother me. It’s the ones we don’t suit up for.”
Warmongerer
@NR:
The individual pieces *did* get put up for a vote, for fuck’s sake. They failed and then no one cared or noticed.
This is a big problem with the “We’d give him credit if he’d just *try*!” crowd because they don’t actually give any credit for trying or even acknowledge/notice that an attempt was made.
fasteddie9318
@Catsy:
Seriously? We’re back to this?
Well, on second thought, a US ton is 2000 lbs, figure somewhere between 100 and 200 lbs average for the Clinton supporters, so that’s 10-20 Clinton supporters who’ve never forgiven Obama. That actually sounds about right.
the Conster
@FlipYrWhig:
I recall clearly the public option debate being aired, but Death Panels sucked all of the media oxygen out of every venue where the ACA was being discussed. If anyone needs to be hit over the head with a 2×4 about the lack of a public option, it’s the FAIL media. Coupled with the president of the day preening in the run up to the vote alternating between the Nelsons, Lieberman, Bayh, the ladies from Maine and Bauchus, it was never. going. to. happen. NEVER.
the Conster
@Karl:
That’s a ridiculous argument. Kneecapping the only players you have on your team? What could go wrong?
Karl
@the Conster: Maybe they won’t vote against your initiatives? What’s the fucking point of having allies if they don’t serve your interests?
JWL
@FlipYrWhig: You equate honest criticism of Obama with undermining the re-election prospects of his candidacy.
What’s the alternative?
the Conster
@Karl:
They’re voted in by their constituents. That’s not in Obama’s control. Not everything is, you know.
Warmongerer
@Karl:
Ask FDR how the the whole “support primary challengers against people you’ll need the votes of for next couple years” thing worked out: It spelled the end of the New Deal.
Fewer than 50 Senators supported the public option. Are you seriously arguing that Obama should have started primarying nearly a quarter of the Democratic caucus?
Warmongerer
@the Conster:
Problematic Senators typically have one or more of three advantages:
1. They’re from states the President didn’t win and/or is currently very unpopular in.
2. They’re long-time incumbents that have built up political support independent of the national party.
3. They’re retiring.
Any of these makes them particularly resistant to political pressure.
Karl
@Warmongerer: Yes. If senators in your party are opposing your initiative, you make them pay a price for it. That’s how shit gets done. There’s no reason to have people on your team if they are fighting against you.
The senators value insurance industry profits over the heath care of their constituents. Fuck them. That’s a Republican’s game, that’s the party they belong with. If they keep getting rewarded for this behavior, they will keep doing it. It’s not that hard.
fasteddie9318
Look, the public option harangue boils down to one very specific issue: if you want to argue that Obama didn’t do enough to get a public option passed, you must explain specifically how he was supposed to leverage Joe Lieberman to vote for it. Lieberman had been reelected as an independent without any Democratic Party support and had already announced he was serving his last term. He had been allowed to maintain his seniority at the beginning of that session of Congress, and thus was secure in his committee chairmanship until the opening of the next Congress, barring a procedural vote that the Republicans would have absolutely blocked. He had no political future to worry about, was secure in his political present, and had no bridges to the Democratic Party left unburned, plus the only thing that gets him hard anymore is casting votes that piss off liberals. If you want to make the case that Obama didn’t do enough, you need to explain what pressure points he could have worked on Lieberman, because Lieberman was all it took to sustain a filibuster and make the whole thing pointless.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@Karl:
YEAH! The voters of Indiana, Virginia, Arkansas, West Virginia, and Nebraska are just waiting for a True Progressive to come along. They’re only voting for Young Earth plutocrat-fuckers in the meantime because Obama isn’t far enough to the left. Or something.
California progressives couldn’t muster a primary challenge against Dianne Fucking Feinstein. If there was even a serious attempt to find a challenger, I didn’t read about it
gaz
@Some Loser: “(Ugh. I wanted to be 256. One of my favorite numbers.)”
A fellow nerd. hai!
I like binary numbers. =)
But my favorite number is 12648430 (at least on little endian machines)
Sadly, (or thankfully) our discussions never draw out that long.
the Conster
@Karl:
If by “rewarded” you mean continually being voted into office by the residents of their respective states, then you’re right, but what does that have to do with Obama? Your beef is with the voters who keep sending these clowns back. If you want to blame Obama for their constituents being misinformed ignoramuses, then GFY.
NR
@FlipYrWhig: I’ve said time and time again that Obama is not the only problem with the Democratic party. The party leadership is rotten to the core.
If the party leadership wasn’t rotten, they could exercise discipline over wayward Senators. They could strip committee assignments, withhold re-election funds, or even support primary challengers. But they don’t. Because these Senators are doing exactly what the leadership wants them to do.
NR
@Jim, Foolish Literalist: The public option routinely polled over 70% in national polls. You don’t get those kinds of numbers when only people in California and New York like something.
NR
@fasteddie9318:
Obama could have held a press conference, played the tape of Lieberman supporting the Medicare buy-in just two months earlier, called him out as the liar he’s always been, and publicly humiliated him in a dozen different ways.
Now, that would not have gotten Lieberman’s vote. But it would have utterly destroyed his credibility with the general public, and Obama could then have leveraged that if he’d chosen to.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@NR: Exactly. Name one congress critter who lost his/her seat for opposing the very popular public option. Name one who lost because ACA wasn’t liberal enough. The phrase “mile wide and inch deep” applies here.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@NR: So it wouldn’t have gotten Lieberman’s vote, but Obama would have had leverage to do… what, exactly? Care to game out Ben Nelson in a way that also doesn’t change any votes? Or Blanche Lincoln. Or Jim Webb. Or Mark Pryor. Or Mary Landrieu. Or Evan Bayh. And I’m probably forgetting some.
the Conster
@Jim, Foolish Literalist:
BULLY PULPIT! BULLLLLLYYY PUUUUULLLLLPPITTTTTTTTTTTTT! That’s what NR wanted – to see Barack waving his dick around. You know, be all emo and shit, like the firebaggers like it, all scary and mean to the bad men. “Public humiliation” is the ultimate firebagger tell.
fasteddie9318
@NR:
Leveraged it how? He wasn’t getting Lieberman’s vote, and that was game over for the public option, period.
Warmongerer
@NR:
Leverage it *how*? The press certainly wouldn’t play along with savaging one of their favorite “even Democrat”s. He’s not running for re-election and even if he did, he’d proven he didn’t need the party to do so.
@Karl:
Did you not read a word I said? FDR tried to do *exactly* that – primary Senators who were insufficiently supportive of his policies. He took out one Senator and the rest won… and then they allied with Republicans to kill any further legislation.
In other words, FDR tried it your way and it literally ended the New Deal.
Kay
I have a complicated opinion of NN, having attended one.
It’s really well-organized, and it’s a big undertaking, so good for them there.
The substantive policy stuff was great, experts, moderators, but it was poorly attended.
The nuts and bolts organizing stuff, frankly, is very weak. If one wants to run for office or find a candidate, I would suggest a state “campaign school”: there’s a liberal org in both Ohio and Minnesota that run them, (probably more, I don’t know) everyone can afford them, and the one I attended this past year was brutally practical and actually useful. NN had panels like “young people: voting this year?” I mean, it’s a given young people don’t punch their weight in elections. I don’t think whether that’s a problem or not merits discussion. It’s a problem.
Finally (and this goes to the last type of NN “event”, the large, media-heavy panels) I think there was a disconnect btwn the “roots” and the “leaders”. I got that from conversations I had and also polling. The “ordinary” attendees were more pro-Obama than the high profile folks. If the polling at that event (which remember, is called NETROOTS), is 80% “approve Obama” the high profile panels should better reflect that.
They don’t HAVE to reflect that, but if they don’t they run the risk of “leaders” speaking out and DOWN to (mostly) passive audiences, the poor rubes who don’t know any better, like that. I don’t think that’s what they set out to do. I think it’s probably called NETROOTS because they’re looking for a more populist, egalitarian feel than that. Again, nothing wrong with leaders being “on the edge” but I do think they have to be careful not to run away with it. Don’t get too far in front of the “roots”, as it were.
Karl
It shouldn’t be hard to leverage any Senator’s vote for the public option.
Even Republicans favored it. Don’t believe me?
tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/09/poll-even-republican-voters-favor-the-public-option.php
So the constituents want it. The party base wants it. The only ones who don’t are . . . blue dogs. So why is it impossible to make them pay a price for it, again?
Because Obama didn’t want it. That’s why, and that’s all that matters. He did not put pressure on the senators because he didn’t want to.
Alex SL
And this, ladies and gentlemen, is why a two party / single winner voting system sucks.
Yes, those who think that it is rational to wholeheartedly support the slightly lefter of only two choices even if it isn’t perfect are right. As the saying goes, if you take the lesser of two evils at least you get less evil.
But also yes, one has to ask where you draw the line before you turn away from the whole process in disgust. As far as I can make out, you have the choice between one party that has people assassinated and indefinitely imprisoned without trial, tortures, wages offensive wars, shields corruption and fraud, and tries to shred the social safety net, and another party that does exactly the same but shreds the social safety net somewhat more hesitantly. Apparently many of you still consider it worthwhile to support the latter, but it may just be somewhat understandable why some others may be fed up with both under these circumstances.
In a proportional representation system, this discussion would be largely moot. Everyone dissatisfied with the democrats could simply vote green or whatever, and then if the democrats would not get a majority with, say, only 37% of the votes, they would have to form a coalition. Potentially with the greens or whatevs, who would have 8% of the vote but could extract concessions because their seats are needed for a coalition government. Likewise, if the GOP fundies are dissatisfied with Mitt, they can vote for some small rightist party in the hope of pushing the republicans a bit to the right. Might do wonders for voter participation, such a system, as there are options beyond centre-right (D) and centre-a-bit-righter (R).
Not that that suggestion will do any good. Americans both on the left and the right appear to think that their current constitution and political system are holy and must never, ever be changed, no matter the fact that they were constructed for a world of horse-drawn carriages, muskets and oil lamps.
Warmongerer
@Karl:
Name one Congressperson who lost their seat in 2010 because they didn’t support a public option.
Karl
@Warmongerer: There aren’t any. Know why? Because the Democratic Party, which Obama leads, did not make them pay any political price. no chairmanships were endangered. No primary challenges were funded.
You just proved my point. Republican politicians are willing to lose elections to give the party base what it wants. If we don’t have the same incentives, we’re doomed.
fasteddie9318
There it is, in a nutshell.
“Obama should have leveraged senators into voting for the public option.”
“But how? Specifically, how could he have leveraged Joe Lieberman, who by any measure had nothing to leverage and was by himself enough to uphold a filibuster?”
“By leveraging him.”
“With what?”
“With leverage.”
And, scene.
General Stuck
Here are some more clean towels. Carry on.
And remember, tomorrow is a school day
Karl
Not to be a dick, but it seems I seem to be getting the most heat for my opinions on the public option- why nothing on the robosigning settlement that I mentioned above? There’s no Congress involved here- and that, I believe is the worse offense here. Robosigning is fraud. The people who gave orders are not in jail. The settlement is being paid for not out of the wrongdoers salaries, but profits, so the shareholders pay for the executives crimes.
No congress here- all Obama and the DOJ pressuring state DAs.
Odie Hugh Manatee
@gaz:
@gaz:
Yup, I’m going “apeshit” by laughing my ass off at the thought that you actually expect to be taken seriously after saying something this fucking stupid.
The cognitive, it dissonances.
the Conster
@Karl:
Well that settles it then. Your mad mindreading skillz sure convinced me.
Karl
@the Conster: I’m not a believe that presidents do anything they do not want to do. They start wars, veto bills, pick VPs, and fuck interns. Everything else is marketing.
Presidents support what they believe is right. If you think there’s anything else going on here, you’re the sucker
David Koch
This is why I’m voting against Elizabeth Warren.
She’s nothing more than a DLC neo-liberal corporatist.
And on foreign policy and the drug war she’s worse than Cheney.
Vote Green.
shortstop
@Karl:
You guys can continue to try to get through to this guy–or you could take Barney Frank’s advice and more profitably converse with your dining room table.
Ain’t no there there with this one.
Karl
@shortstop: Please provide a substantive criticism. I have argued that Presidents support what they believe to be right. I do not believe that political calculations dictate their policy preferences. This is not that far-fetched. Address the issue, please. What evidence do you have that President Obama has supported a policy that he does not believe to be correct?
gaz
@Odie Hugh Manatee:
Seriously? So not voting for obama specifically on the presidential ticket is the same as not voting at all in an off year election because you are pissed at Obama?
What the fuck are you smoking, and why aren’t you sharing?
I think you need to actually read what the fuck I said, instead of just the parts you wanted to. (and that my friend, is why you are firmly in the Obot camp, in my book)
shortstop
@Karl: Well, it won’t be the first time I’ve talked to a piece of furniture, but it’s my initial try at doing it sober. My evidence that presidents do things they don’t want to do is that our country has two major parties at odds with each other and 535 individuals in Congress who have varying opinions about how to do things, many in direct contradiction. The legislative branch–you may have heard of it, but I’m not putting any money on it–has a process by which bills are introduced, debated, amended and occasionally passed, only very rarely in their original forms because of all those assorted characters I just mentioned each having a vote and doing something called negotiation. Big word, I know–but don’t be scared; it’s kind of like when you trade your friend bubble gum for a baseball card! We also have something called the judicial (joo-DISH-ul) branch. You can call it “the courts” if it’s easier to remember. Sometimes the judicial branch tells a president that something he wants is not constitutional, or requires the president and the executive branch–I know, fancy name, isn’t it!? Makes you think of big cars and twirly chairs–to do things they wish they didn’t have to do.
It’s a lot to take in, but I can see you’re interested in learning, so check this out. You’ll have it down in no time!
Now about your “evidence,” which consists solely of your dearly held belief that presidents have power over time, space and the actions of everyone around them? Yeah, you’re pretty much out of luck.
gaz
@Odie Hugh Manatee: While we’re on the topic, please explain to me why casting my vote for Obama in 2012, in WASHINGTON STATE will make any difference at all. Please show your work. And when you are done, kindly go fuck yourself.
fasteddie9318
@Karl: Right, politics never factors into Presidential decision-making. This explains why Justice Harriet Meiers recently wrote the majority opinion in the case that upheld the privatization of Social Security.
A Humble Lurker
@Clime Acts:
And I’m Morgan Freeman. See how easy it is to pretend to be something you’re not on the internet?
By the way, Mnem’s analogy?
OzoneR
@NR:
I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but Lieberman is one of the most unpopular Senators in the country, so much so, he isn’t running for reelection.
Chuck Butcher
Well, 300 some comments have persuaded me – I don’t have a team or side so I’ll contribute just as much money and time as I figure has been earned – none – then I’ll go ahead and vote against the GOPers and leave it at that. It would take more effort than it is worth to ditch the (D) on my registration that reflects the views most here have. I don’t suppose that back in ’71 it had as much meaning as I thought, but today is pretty clear.
I probably won’t STFU, but since I don’t have a team or side I’m not doing anything to undermine one and I do realize that the (D) will take every vote against a GOPer as being for them, but figuring out how to deal with that can wait for another election. (and another one and… until the train is clear off the tracks and it doesn’t matter anymore)
Martin
@Karl:
Gitmo tribunals. On day one he signed an order to close Gitmo and try everyone in the US. Congress told him to jump up his own ass. So plan B it would be.
Hell, you didn’t even need to get through his first week in office to find a pretty clear example.
Karl
@shortstop: Once again, please provide evidence of President Obama SUPPORTING something for any reason other than he thinks it’s the right thing.
My argument, all along, is that President Obama did not support the public option because he did not think it was the right thing. I’m not talking about what Congress can accept or pass, not what the judicial branch will uphold or strike down. Don’t don’t give me any condescending shit about how the U.S. government works, you ass. I know how it works. I’m saying that Presdient’s don’t give two shits about what Congress thinks, or what the judicial branch thinks, or what their Cheifs of staff think. They support what they believe to be right. Obama does not support a public option because he doesn’t agree with it. If he supported it, he would fight for it. He did not.
Martin: You’ve proved my point. President supported Gitmo closing. Congress still show him down. Seems like he supported closing Gitmo regardless of whether it would pass.
@fasteddie9318: You’ve also proved my point. Bush wanted Miers on the Supreme Court. Congress said no. Bush did not support a nominee based on who he thought Congress would support- he picked the best nominee (in his feeble mind) and went with it.
Also, can someone please justify the robosigning settlement already? I really want to hear why this is Congress’s fault.
Clime Acts
@General Stuck:
You probably won’t be posting here anymore then, right?
Clime Acts
@the Conster:
Wow. Your Bot-ulism is eating away at your brain.
FlipYrWhig
@Karl: “You’re saying” stupid shit. I’m virtually positive Obama STILL supports a public option. Hell, he probably still supports single-payer like he said in his Senate campaign. But believe it or not there gets to be a point where your good idea that people actually like dies because not enough politicians in your own party want to do it. And at that point, you can either wail about how nobody else is doing the right thing, or you bite your lip and figure out what you can actually get from the idiots you’re stuck with, and move on. Anyone who has ever had a strategic planning meeting or a staff retreat has seen this happen.
As for punishing wayward Senators. Kinda hard to do that when a third of them are wayward. You can say “vote for the public option or I run against you and make your life miserable.”. Then Senator Shmoe says, “hey, do your worst, the people of my state don’t even like you and they’ll like me better if they see me being a thorn in your side. You can either do it my way or risk getting a Republican instead of me.”. This isn’t a matter of bringing around one or two holdouts. Even Barney Frank wanted to pull the plug. They were willing to kill the whole thing if it wasn’t done in a way they could just barely tolerate. You don’t have “leverage” against that. You have spite and cursing, but that doesn’t really help get the rest of your agenda passed, does it?
I can’t believe how many times we have to game this out. And it always comes back to “he should have been more threatening in a nonspecific way so that there would be terrible repercussions.”. And the answer to that is always this. They don’t give a shit.
Clime Acts
@A Humble Lurker:
Hey stalker: I’m curious. Who is it you believe me to be?
Not WHAT, mind you, but who?
Can’t wait to hear this.
magurakurin
@gaz:
Are you fucking calling me out? Should I put a fucking chip of wood on my shoulder?
Here’s a fucking news flash for you, not everyone who reads this blog everyday feels the need to pepper every thread with endless postings.
And here’s my deal with you. Your suggestion about voting third party is to put it nicely, fucking stupid. You say you want to vote third party because if enough people would vote third party it would draw attention to a third party and break the two party system. Me and others (more politely and diplomatically) informed that the two party system won’t go away without massive constitutional changes and therefore voting for the Greens is nothing more than mental masturbation that somehow makes you feel “independent.” You then reply that because of the electoral college it doesn’t matter, which by the way is the same reason why the two party system won’t go anywhere by your voting third party. You then primp and preen about how smart you are and what a fool I am because you live in Washington so your third party vote won’t matter.
Uh yeah, that’s the point. Your vote won’t matter. But more to the point you are claiming two contradictory points of view. You say you in fact want more people to vote for a third party because it will bring about change. But when pointed out that if this happens it will increase the chance that a raging shitbag like Romney could be president, you admit that this is true but then say it doesn’t matter because nobody will vote third party. Yet, if the very thing you want happens…people vote third party… you also admit that the very thing I don’t want to happen…Romney or some other asshole becoming president… will have an increased chance of occurring.
Just fucking pull the big lever with the D on it and vote for Obama and be fucking done with it. And tell everyone and their mother to do the same.
Karl
@FlipYrWhig: Actually, there’s plenty of evidence that it DOES work. Look at the Republican party How many pro-choice representatives do they have? How many that support tax cuts on the wealthy?
You all keep saying the same thing- it can’t happen with the current Congress. And I keep saying the same thing, the party leadership DOES NOT WANT IT. Party leadership that includes Obama.
Maybe I’m wrong about what’s possible, but I don’t care- none of you are addressing the issue. How do we make the Democratic Party and the Democratic President responsive to OUR Needs, not Ben Nelson? If not withholding our vote, then how? What, exactly, are we supposed to do to make our voices heard? Because it seems the party leadership is more concerned with keeping as many people with (D) after their name in Congress than it is making life better for Americans.
Also, still nothing on that robosigning settlement . . .
Chuck Butcher
@Karl:
I suppose it matters how you define “party leadership.” The plutocrats want what they want and get it and the opposition is thin. The stranglehold on the GOP is pretty obvious, but a (D) is far from a guarantee.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@Karl:
You are completely incoherent.
Dumbass ipsa loquitor
Ben Nelson is a Democrat. You might not like, I might not like it, I certainly don’t get it. But you can’t talk about him, or Landrieu or countless others as if they’re not part of the Democratic Party. Ben Nelson won’t notice if you “withhold” your vote from Obama, and certainly won’t give a shit. He’s probably “withholding” his own vote from Obama. ANd assuming he votes in Nebraska, that won’t much matter a damn.
the Conster
@Clime Acts:
Sphincter says what?
Chuck Butcher
Cripes, Skyrim looks like an intellectual exercise next to this shit-fest so I’ll go stretch a few brain cells and let you all throw poo at each other.
amk
Note to self – karl is a fucking firebagger and a moron to boot.
Bruce S
Didn’t read the comments because the post itself was border line brain dead. And FWIW I can’t stand reading Daily Kos – but at least they aren’t bent over for any stupid shit that comes out of this administration like the year of “deficit reduction” nonsense that amplified the GOP’s insane agenda.
gaz
@magurakurin: I’ve switched my reason for voting 3rd party. Now it’s just to piss you off, sweetheart.
Big Kiss
gaz
FFR, it’s arrogant as fuck to tell somebody how to vote.
And furthermore, anyone that’s being an arrogant and condescending twatwaffle about it is EXTREMELY stupid for thinking they’re going to win anyone over.
class dismissed.
fasteddie9318
@Karl: @Karl: Um, no, Meiers withdrew herself from consideration after everybody and their grandmother told Bush that her nomination was ridiculous. Congress never had to say anything. FFS, crack open a book or read Wikipedia or something.
Death Panel Truck
@gaz:
I’m not voting obama in 2012. (watch the thread explode – even though he’ll get my electoral vote – now watch the obots go apeshit)
Yawn. It’s cute the way you think anyone actually cares who you vote for.
FlipYrWhig
@Karl:
By being more than a small segment of the Democratic party. We are not that now.
By voting for the candidate on the ballot who is the closest match for our views, and by doing more to get candidates on the ballot who are even closer matches for our views. Build institutions, build arguments, cultivate better candidates, then when they lose gritting our teeth and voting for the next best option. Vote for Ben Nelson when the election is Nelson vs. Even Bigger Dumbfuck (R), but try to find a viable non-Nelson candidate before that point. And don’t bellyache about how the “leadership” supports the incumbent or the deep-pocketed moderate. Turn out the vote and kick his ass anyway. If you can’t, that sure as shit doesn’t bode well for your ability to beat the Republican.
You have yourself convinced that the “party leadership” always gets what it wants and acts deliberately and with forethought. I think it’s pretty evident that, on the contrary, different Democrats want very different things, and that’s why it’s so painful to make them converge. And when they converge, they converge well to the right of liberalism, because a lot of them aren’t liberals, they’re basically soft Republicans. The number of liberals who reliably want liberal-satisfying outcomes is, like, a third of the Democrats in DC. How do you get more liberals in there? By making MORE liberals who vote. Not LESS. That’s ass-backwards.
Death Panel Truck
@Death Panel Truck: Obviously the first sentence of my post should have been in blockquote. I’m a proud Obot, myself.
David Koch
ATTICA!
ATTICA!
ATTICA!
good2go
I love it. Cole sits there and types about how the Democrats are pussies who never fight.
Now we have snotty brat comments about “the Purveyors of Purity” who “have to fly the colors once in a while to let people know which side they are (supposedly) on.”
So which is it?
RobinDC
Can we please stop with this nonsense that left wing screaming made Obama move anywhere this year? It should be abundantly clear by now that Obama goes his own way all the time.
His left turn for the election is electioneering and nothing more. He doesn’t believe any of the economic populism he adopted recently. To believe otherwise is completely naive. Where it really counts he continues to drop the ball, witness the pathetic mortgage task force going nowhere fast and Corzine walking around at large. Or the JOBS act, an absolute disaster which will explode in 5 years give or take.
Any sweet nothings you hear from Obama this campaign season are just that, sweet nothings, don’t expect deliverance if he wins again. Prepare yourselves for republican economic policy implemented by either candidate next term.
fasteddie9318
@FlipYrWhig:
Maybe get involved in the party, also too? Get elected to the local party leadership and start trying to elect progressives at local levels, so you can build public support and a bench of candidates to run for state-level offices, then national-level offices. Or, and this is crazy I know, but how about running for office yourself?
No, no, it’s much more effective to work real hard to elect a moderate president and then get disillusioned that we’re not living in Sweden overnight. That’s why the conservative rump of the Republican Party is so totally powerless, because they wasted decades building a base of strong support at the local and state levels while liberals knew that the only thing that matters is the presidency.