HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Want a more progressive p...

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 01:01 AM

Want a more progressive president? Then get a more progressive Congress.

We could have the most progressive President possible, but with the current Congressional makeup, it still wouldn't do much good. The rethugs are still too entrenched, and the Democrats in Congress haven't really shown much of a spine.

Imagine what we could do if we could fill Congress with folks like Alan Grayson

68 replies, 4201 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 68 replies Author Time Post
Reply Want a more progressive president? Then get a more progressive Congress. (Original post)
Hugabear Jan 2012 OP
elleng Jan 2012 #1
Angry Dragon Jan 2012 #4
TheWraith Jan 2012 #38
Liberal_Stalwart71 Jan 2012 #40
Angry Dragon Jan 2012 #62
DevonRex Jan 2012 #2
Angry Dragon Jan 2012 #3
Lionessa Jan 2012 #6
uponit7771 Jan 2012 #26
woo me with science Jan 2012 #11
Liberal_Stalwart71 Jan 2012 #42
uponit7771 Jan 2012 #25
deacon Jan 2012 #5
whatchamacallit Jan 2012 #7
emulatorloo Jan 2012 #17
woo me with science Jan 2012 #8
emulatorloo Jan 2012 #15
Number23 Jan 2012 #50
dogknob Jan 2012 #9
woo me with science Jan 2012 #16
Firebrand Gary Jan 2012 #10
emulatorloo Jan 2012 #14
Liberal_Stalwart71 Jan 2012 #43
CC Jan 2012 #12
TheKentuckian Jan 2012 #13
bowens43 Jan 2012 #18
uponit7771 Jan 2012 #28
Cherchez la Femme Jan 2012 #54
Bodhi BloodWave Jan 2012 #59
_ed_ Jan 2012 #19
Liberal_Stalwart71 Jan 2012 #44
_ed_ Jan 2012 #49
Liberal_Stalwart71 Jan 2012 #51
Autumn Jan 2012 #20
Liberal_Stalwart71 Jan 2012 #45
Autumn Jan 2012 #48
Liberal_Stalwart71 Jan 2012 #52
Autumn Jan 2012 #55
Liberal_Stalwart71 Jan 2012 #58
Autumn Jan 2012 #60
AnotherMcIntosh Jan 2012 #68
madokie Jan 2012 #21
MineralMan Jan 2012 #22
uponit7771 Jan 2012 #23
PassingFair Jan 2012 #24
Liberal_Stalwart71 Jan 2012 #53
BumRushDaShow Jan 2012 #27
Vattel Jan 2012 #29
Hugabear Jan 2012 #31
mmonk Jan 2012 #30
emulatorloo Jan 2012 #47
SidDithers Jan 2012 #32
raouldukelives Jan 2012 #33
Scurrilous Jan 2012 #34
T S Justly Jan 2012 #35
zipplewrath Jan 2012 #36
Jankyn Jan 2012 #37
stillwaiting Jan 2012 #39
Liberal_Stalwart71 Jan 2012 #46
stillwaiting Jan 2012 #61
Liberal_Stalwart71 Jan 2012 #64
stillwaiting Jan 2012 #67
uponit7771 Jan 2012 #57
stillwaiting Jan 2012 #63
Liberal_Stalwart71 Jan 2012 #41
Justice wanted Jan 2012 #56
nanabugg Jan 2012 #65
joshcryer Jan 2012 #66

Response to Hugabear (Original post)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 01:04 AM

1. Exactly.

Someone said rethugs scared of grinch 'cause his 'coattails' will result in losses in Senate and of House, so lets hope for it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elleng (Reply #1)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 01:13 AM

4. And then we will hear about all the blue dogs getting elected

and nothing can be done about them

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Angry Dragon (Reply #4)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 03:40 PM

38. Most districts won't elect Alan Grayson.

But you can have the choice of a "Blue Dog" who's going to vote with us 85% of the time, or a Republican who'll vote with us maybe 5% of the time. Easy choice, I think.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheWraith (Reply #38)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 05:21 PM

40. Sadly it's the price we must pay for being a "Big Tent" party.

I wish people understood that better.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheWraith (Reply #38)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 09:28 PM

62. Yes, I would agree

however all I heard was how the blue dogs would not come through

and the poster is saying how we need to elect progressives

Progressive blue dogs??

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hugabear (Original post)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 01:10 AM

2. Amen. Nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hugabear (Original post)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 01:12 AM

3. So you are saying that a president can not push

the people in their party to be more progressive??
I guess I thought a president was suppose to lead and not follow.........

And I really do not want to hear any bullshit about how he can not get anything done with the congress he has.
All he has to do is fight for what he wants and force the others to stand behind their own votes.......

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Angry Dragon (Reply #3)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 01:17 AM

6. I agree and further mention the Congress he had before this one,

 

if he can't lead, he should step out of the way for someone who can.

Even when he had a more progressive, though full of BlueDogs truly as is the Democratic Party as a whole, but still more progressive than he has now, he couldn't seem to hang on to anything. His negotiation skills seem to be lacking or his heart was never into his supposed campaign perspectives. I think more likely the second, but neither gives me much hope.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lionessa (Reply #6)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 09:39 AM

26. Only 59 days with controlling congress, bashers are getting slack. We already know this

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Angry Dragon (Reply #3)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 01:25 AM

11. Thank you.

And when the President is NOT doing this, it is OUR DUTY to push him to do it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to woo me with science (Reply #11)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 05:26 PM

42. And that's EXACTLY what he asked us to do way back in 2007. It is OUR responsibility

to hold him accountable, but no matter how much we scream and shout, if we don't get more progressives in Congress, then that's OUR fault, not his.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Angry Dragon (Reply #3)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 09:38 AM

25. No, if you've been paying half ass'd attention GOP changed Senate procedures

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hugabear (Original post)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 01:15 AM

5. Fire the useless Boehner. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hugabear (Original post)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 01:20 AM

7. Right... Until one of those "more progressive" democrats criticizes the prez

then it's "off with their leftist head!".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whatchamacallit (Reply #7)


Response to Hugabear (Original post)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 01:21 AM

8. Poor Obama.

Yeah, the Congress made him

Sign NDAA
keep on Geithner
hire for his Chief of Staff a Wall Street exec who profited from the mortgage collapse
pressure attorneys general for settlements for corrupt banks
use SS and Medicare as bargaining chips to implement an austerity budget
Sign three new free trade agreements
support naked scanning and groping by TSA
ramp up the drug war
expand the MIC into multiple new countries
give stirring speeches to the American people about the wisdom of austerity and budget slashing in this economy

I heard that Boehner sneaks into his house at night and makes him eat clay, too.


*Of course* we need a more progressive Congress. We also need to PUSH this President to represent us, because clearly he is serving corporate interests in too many cases even when Congress is obviously not the problem.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to woo me with science (Reply #8)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 01:41 AM

15. I hear Obama sneaks into your house each night and eats all the food in your refrigerator

Right after he naked scans and gropes you.

As to your post: Hyperbole Alert.

If you would write in a calm rational matter, you might be able to convince others of your viewpoint.

Your FDL style hyped up rants and snarky sloganeering really undercuts your posts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to emulatorloo (Reply #15)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 06:53 PM

50. !!!

Your FDL style hyped up rants and snarky sloganeering really undercuts your posts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hugabear (Original post)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 01:23 AM

9. If the White House investigates all the dems who took bribes from the MPAA...

...bribes that MPAA prez (and former senator) Chris Dodd admitted to on FOX News yesterday, who knows?

I'd love to see them all replaced with Alan Grayson.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/01/23/mpaa_bribery_petition_white_house/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dogknob (Reply #9)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 01:47 AM

16. Wow, I had not seen that.

Is this an OP yet? It should be.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hugabear (Original post)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 01:24 AM

10. Check plus!

I wish people would realize this and DONATE, go out for the candidates and KNOCK on doors, make PHONE calls. If people want real change, you have to work for it.

If change was easy to come by, why would we bother?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Firebrand Gary (Reply #10)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 01:38 AM

14. To many here want to teach America a lesson

Evil Obama must be defeated and the House and Senate placed in Republican hands.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to emulatorloo (Reply #14)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 05:28 PM

43. Yes because he's a BAD, BAD, BAD, EVIL, MORALLY CORRUPT MAN!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hugabear (Original post)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 01:26 AM

12. Very true. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hugabear (Original post)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 01:33 AM

13. Yup, you get a Constitutional Amendment passing majority of Bernies and Allens in the Senate

and House with so much fire in their bellies that they'd fillabuster the shit out their own President's nominations and we are cooking with gas.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hugabear (Original post)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 08:05 AM

18. That is a ridiculously lame attempt to excuse

Obama's decidedly conservative presidency.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bowens43 (Reply #18)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 09:41 AM

28. and your response is an exporsuring how much bashers don't understand how US government works.

...its a trick statement.

A progressive congress can override a conservative president

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uponit7771 (Reply #28)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 07:24 PM

54. Who voted for a conservative president??

and you opine about trick statements...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cherchez la Femme (Reply #54)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 07:53 PM

59. where is the supposed conservative president?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hugabear (Original post)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 08:58 AM

19. Blanche Lincoln?

We had a progressive candidate ready to primary her. The Obama administration and the DNC in general supported Lincoln. So, when we work for a more progressive Congress, the President and DNC support the corporatist.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to _ed_ (Reply #19)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 05:30 PM

44. Why do you give him that much power, then? Go out and work for the progressive

and don't listen to the president.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liberal_Stalwart71 (Reply #44)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 06:47 PM

49. The OP was making the point that Obama can't be

progressive like he wants to unless Congress was also. My point was that the President is not a progressive and didn't campaign for the progressive against Lincoln, for example. So, with no Presidential and DNC support ($$$), the progressive can't win.

I think we need to elect a progressive President who will get progressive results by putting pressure on Congress. Unfortunately, that's not even remotely possible until 2016.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to _ed_ (Reply #49)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 07:02 PM

51. And I agree with the OP. But, forgive me. I don't buy the excuse that since Obama campaigned for

the Blue Dog, there was nothing that we could do.

We learned from the grassroots in Wisconsin and in Ohio that we CAN beat the monied interests, without a leader.

Occupy Wall Street is also teaching us about the power of proactive resistance. This is being done without a leader. And in fact, I believe is pushing Obama to the left.

It's the same with Congress. With more progressive members PUSHING him, we can get this done. We also know this because Nancy Pelosi was able to get over 200 pieces of progressive legislation through the House Chamber. But because the Senate contained too many Blue Dogs joining in with Republicans to block that legislation.

I simply don't buy the excuse that the president tried to hinder progressives from electing the candidate they wanted. We have shown that he can beat the Koch Brothers and other monied elites.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hugabear (Original post)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 09:04 AM

20. Please tell that to Obama. We had a Progressive running here in CO

Obama came here and campaigned for Bennet. That was a nasty thing to do.
.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Autumn (Reply #20)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 05:31 PM

45. Tell that to the president? It is YOUR responsibility to get people to the polls and vote.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liberal_Stalwart71 (Reply #45)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 06:40 PM

48. I did tell him about that. No it is not my responsibility to get people

to the polls and vote. Been there, done that. Not going to do it again. It is the Democrat's responsibility to get people to vote for them. If Democratic politicians vote and stand up for the Democratic platform then they don't have to "get" people to vote for them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Autumn (Reply #48)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 07:02 PM

52. Why is it not? There is power in numbers. The more people who vote, the more we can BEAT

the Money Machine. We already witnessed this in Wisconsin and Ohio just this year!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liberal_Stalwart71 (Reply #52)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 07:37 PM

55. I commented on the fact that Obama chose to campaign for a blue dog, not

a progressive here in CO. That is what my post was about. Nothing you have posted has any relevance to that. I'm not interested in going where you want to go.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Autumn (Reply #55)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 07:46 PM

58. Go back and re-read what I wrote. I simply don't accept that excuse. So what. Obama campaigned

for the Blue Dog. Why didn't more people go out and vote for the progressive? The president doesn't control the way people vote. Were there enough liberals/progressives active enough to get the progressive candidate in office?

That's my point. It's not at all irrelevant. The point is that more progressives need to get involves in politics at the grassroots level. The more we have, the more we beat monied interests.

Just sitting blaming Obama while at the same time not doing enough to elect the progressive defeats the purpose. It is counterproductive. Next time, work hard to overcome the Blue Dog, unless there is simply not enough progressive voters that will vote for the progressive candidate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liberal_Stalwart71 (Reply #58)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 08:32 PM

60. My point was Obama chose to campaign for a blue dog,

to me that means he is not interested in having a Progressive Senate or Congress.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Autumn (Reply #60)

Wed Jan 25, 2012, 01:03 AM

68. You're right. Why isn't that obvious to everyone?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hugabear (Original post)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 09:06 AM

21. Hell I'd like to see Grayson in the White House

Not as a visitor either

Hey Alan if you're lurking out there come talk to us man. Around here at du you are well liked
Peace to you Sir.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hugabear (Original post)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 09:25 AM

22. What you said!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hugabear (Original post)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 09:38 AM

23. Yeap, agree 100% Basher Rule Number One - Don't mention congress, just bash Obama

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hugabear (Original post)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 09:38 AM

24. You'll have to lop off the Blue Dogs and the "New Dems" (DLC)

Last edited Tue Jan 24, 2012, 03:01 PM - Edit history (1)

The Progressive Caucus in Congress has more members than
the Blue Dogs and the New Dems combined, but when those
two throw in with the republicans, there's not much that we
can do about it.

The Progressive Caucus is who Rahm Emanuel was talking
to when he told them that their aims were "fucking retarded".

Support your Progressive Democrat:

Arizona

Ed Pastor (AZ-4, Phoenix)
Raúl Grijalva (AZ-7, Tucson) - Co-Chair

California

Lynn Woolsey (CA-6, Santa Rosa)
George Miller (CA-7, Richmond)
Barbara Lee (CA-9, Oakland)
Pete Stark (CA-13, Fremont)
Janice Hahn (CA-36, San Pedro)
Michael Honda (CA-15, San Jose)
Sam Farr (CA-17, Monterey)
Henry Waxman (CA-30, Los Angeles)
Xavier Becerra (CA-31, Los Angeles)
Judy Chu (CA-32, El Monte)
Karen Bass (CA-33, Baldwin Hills)
Lucille Roybal-Allard (CA-34, Los Angeles)
Maxine Waters (CA-35, Inglewood)
Laura Richardson (CA-37, Long Beach)
Linda Sánchez (CA-39, Lakewood)
Bob Filner (CA-51, San Diego)

Colorado

Jared Polis (CO-02, Boulder)
Connecticut

Rosa DeLauro (CT-3, New Haven)

Florida

Corrine Brown (FL-3, Jacksonville)
Frederica Wilson (FL-17, Miami)
Alcee Hastings (FL-23, Fort Lauderdale)

Georgia

Hank Johnson (GA-4, Lithonia)
John Lewis (GA-5, Atlanta)
Hawaii

Mazie Hirono (HI-2, Honolulu)

Illinois

Bobby Rush (IL-1, Chicago)
Jesse Jackson, Jr. (IL-2, Chicago Heights)
Luis Gutierrez (IL-4, Chicago)
Danny Davis (IL-7, Chicago)
Jan Schakowsky (IL-9, Chicago)
Indiana

André Carson (IN-7, Indianapolis)

Iowa

Dave Loebsack (IA-2, Cedar Rapids)

Maine

Chellie Pingree (ME-1, North Haven)

Maryland

Donna Edwards (MD-4, Fort Washington)
Elijah Cummings (MD-7, Baltimore)

Massachusetts
John Olver (MA-1, Amherst)
Jim McGovern (MA-3, Worcester)
Barney Frank (MA-4, Newton)
John Tierney (MA-6, Salem)
Ed Markey (MA-7, Malden)
Mike Capuano (MA-8, Boston)

Michigan

John Conyers (MI-14, Detroit)

Minnesota

Keith Ellison (MN-5, Minneapolis) - Co-Chair

Mississippi

Bennie Thompson (MS-2, Bolton)

Missouri

William Lacy Clay, Jr. (MO-1, St. Louis)
Emanuel Cleaver (MO-5, Kansas City) - Chairman, Congressional Black Caucus

New Jersey

Frank Pallone (NJ-06, Long Branch)
Donald Payne (NJ-10, Newark)

New Mexico

Ben R. Luján (NM-3, Santa Fe)

New York

Jerry Nadler (NY-8, Manhattan)
Yvette Clarke (NY-11, Brooklyn)
Nydia Velázquez (NY-12, Brooklyn)
Carolyn Maloney (NY-14, Manhattan)
Charles Rangel (NY-15, Harlem)
José Serrano (NY-16, Bronx)
Maurice Hinchey (NY-22, Saugerties)
Louise Slaughter (NY-28, Rochester)

North Carolina

Mel Watt (NC-12, Charlotte)

Ohio

Marcy Kaptur (OH-9, Toledo)
Dennis Kucinich (OH-10, Cleveland)
Marcia Fudge (OH-11, Warrensville Heights)

Oregon

Earl Blumenauer (OR-3, Portland)
Peter DeFazio (OR-4, Eugene)
Pennsylvania

Bob Brady (PA-1, Philadelphia)
Chaka Fattah (PA-2, Philadelphia)

Rhode Island

David Cicilline (RI-1, Providence)

Tennessee

Steve Cohen (TN-9, Memphis)

Texas

Sheila Jackson Lee (TX-18, Houston)
Eddie Bernice Johnson (TX-30, Dallas)

Vermont

Peter Welch (VT-At Large)

Virginia

Jim Moran (VA-8, Alexandria)

Washington

Jim McDermott (WA-7, Seattle)

Wisconsin
Tammy Baldwin (WI-2, Madison)
Gwen Moore (WI-4, Milwaukee)

Non-voting

Donna M. Christensen (Virgin Islands)
Eleanor Holmes Norton (District of Columbia)


Senate members

Bernie Sanders (Vermont)

Former Members

Sherrod Brown (OH-13) - Elected to Senate
Roland Burris (IL Senate) - Retired from Congress
Julia Carson (IN-07) - Died in December 2007
Lane Evans (IL-17) - Retired from Congress
Alan Grayson (FL-8) defeated for re-election in 2010
John Hall (NY-19) defeated for re-election in 2010
Phil Hare (IL-17) defeated for re-election in 2010
Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick (MI-13) defeated for re-nomination in 2010
Eric Massa (NY-29) - Resigned in March 2010
Cynthia McKinney (GA-4) - Lost Congressional seat to current caucus member Hank Johnson
Major Owens (NY-11) - Retired from Congress
Nancy Pelosi (CA-8) - Left Caucus when Elected House Minority Leader
Hilda Solis (CA-32) - Became Secretary of Labor in 2009
Stephanie Tubbs Jones (OH-11) - Died in 2008
Paul Wellstone (MN Senate) - Died in plane crash in 2002
Robert Wexler (FL-19) - Resigned in January 2010 to become President of the Center for Middle East Peace and Economic Cooperation

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PassingFair (Reply #24)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 07:03 PM

53. You're proving the OP's point. The more progressive House was able to get through over 200 pieces of

progressive legislation, only to be blocked by the more conservative Senate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hugabear (Original post)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 09:41 AM

27. K&R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hugabear (Original post)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 09:45 AM

29. A progressive Congress would still face

a pro-militarism, anti-civil-liberties, pro-drug-war, anti-medical-marijuana, pro-deportation, pro-imperial-presidency president.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vattel (Reply #29)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 09:52 AM

31. What we need is a veto-proof progressive Congress

If we had a veto-proof Congress that was *truly* progressive, then it would go a very long ways in mitigating a conservative president.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hugabear (Original post)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 09:50 AM

30. The lack of progressives or progressive legislation from the Democrats

is not the voters fault. They are trying to go as progressive as they can.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mmonk (Reply #30)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 06:04 PM

47. Pelosi house put out a shitload of excellent legislation

Which Republicans and Liebermann fucked up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hugabear (Original post)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 09:55 AM

32. K&R...

but it's easier for perpetually aggrieved to complain about one person, than it is for them to complain about 100 or 435.

Sid

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hugabear (Original post)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 10:32 AM

33. Exactly. Look at W for example.

He couldn't have accomplished what he did without a conservative congress.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hugabear (Original post)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 12:23 PM

34. Agreed. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hugabear (Original post)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 12:58 PM

35. Actually, it's 'want a more progressive Congress, then get a more progressive President'

 

It's a lot easier, too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hugabear (Original post)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 01:03 PM

36. Always move the bar higher

This president chose to work with the blue dogs, and even supported them over more left leaning candidates. He went and lobbied in Kucinich's district, and never even CALLED Lieberman. He had majorities in both houses, and waited until he lost them to try to raise the debt limit. We can always use a more progressive congress, but it never hurts to have a more progressive White House either. Congress rarely wants to "get ahead" of its own president, especially in the sense of "stick their neck out".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hugabear (Original post)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 03:03 PM

37. +a gazillion!

That's the key. Nothing gets done without an effective majority in Congress.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hugabear (Original post)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 05:20 PM

39. Want a more progressive president?

Change the system FIRST.

Then elect a progressive Congress and progressive President.

The people do not have the money to compete with the multinationals and billionaires to ever get a progressive Congress. I think to believe it's possible is ultimately delaying that which must happen first. A movement to change the election system and how our government works. It will be a continued, jaw grinding descent downwards where we are betrayed time and time again until we take legalized bribery completely out of our election and governmental system.

The system is corrupt.

We can't pretend otherwise.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stillwaiting (Reply #39)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 05:46 PM

46. And with this statement that you have made, I challenge you to sign

Bernie Sanders' petition re: getting money out of politics. We change the system from the bottom up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liberal_Stalwart71 (Reply #46)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 09:28 PM

61. Already done it.

I believe the system MUST change or else this country will continue on the path it's been on the past 3 1/2 to 4 decades.

I appreciate your publicizing Bernie Sanders petition.

The movement that will MAKE them change the way D.C. works will come from people in the streets demanding it. Petitions are nice, and I certainly have signed many of them. "Our" elected representatives in D.C. will only change the system if enough Americans are in the streets demanding they do it.

I have spoken with many Tea Party members around where I live, and they believe in many of the things that I want to see implemented to change our current system to make it more democratic and more likely to serve the interests of the Americans who elect Congress persons.

Things like:

1. Term limits
2. Paper ballots
3. A ban on lobbying
4. Public funding of elections (yes, many of them are open to this to make Congresspersons accountable to the people)
5. Instant Runoff Voting (IRV)

and a few other things.

I can and will stand with Tea Party members in the streets to change our election system and to implement laws to make D.C. Congress members be more interested in serving their constituents' needs and desires over multinational corporations' and billionaires' interests.

If OWS and the Tea Party ever join forces to demand a change in D.C. I will have hope that we just may one day begin to make things better for the majority of Americans and start to reverse the ongoing distribution of wealth and income from the working class, middle class, and poor to the top 1%. I am under no illusion that most Tea Party members would begin to support our agenda. I am fully convinced that if our system is changed, that Congress could (and would) begin to pass legislation that actually benefits the economic well-being of their average constituent. When such large majorities of Americans want a public health care system, it could get passed.

We have to put the issues down in order to change the system, and I hope that one day we can do that. I loathe Tea Party positions and principles, but if they want to change the system in the same ways I do, then I will gladly put down my issues and stand with them as an American to change our corrupt system.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stillwaiting (Reply #61)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 09:57 PM

64. We're on the same page. Don't see what the problem is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liberal_Stalwart71 (Reply #64)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 11:07 PM

67. Glad to see we're on the same page.

I don't have a problem with you.

My post wasn't directed at you as a sermon or anything . It was simply me expressing my thoughts in general about this topic.

I didn't think it was argumentative or combative in nature, and I apologize if anything I wrote came across that way.





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stillwaiting (Reply #39)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 07:44 PM

57. I disagree, there are more 25$ donors than there are 25 million dollar donors

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uponit7771 (Reply #57)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 09:48 PM

63. You're ignoring the legalized bribery that's within our system.

Lobbying dollars and PAC's can spend (and do spend) so much money that it's just not possible for the average American to compete with these interests. We don't have the money that they do.

Official donor stats are nice to look at, but they can be very misleading as they do not take into account the money spent (donors can remain hidden to us, but I feel confident are not hidden to elected officials) outside of official donation numbers.

Also, it is my opinion that our current elected officials care much, much more about fulfilling the wishes of those individuals and corporations with enormous bank accounts over those individuals who donated $25 to their campaign (regardless of how many individuals donated $25).

I wish I had the same faith in our current system that you do. However, since I do not, I currently look forward to the day that more and more Americans feel the way I do and do not have that faith. For then, I believe that we just may be starting down the right path to getting the change that most of us want.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hugabear (Original post)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 05:25 PM

41. Howard Dean gave us the 50-state strategy that many here have embraced.

However, when told that this strategy resulted in the election of a large group of Blue Dog Democrats, many DUers don't want to hear or accept that.

And now that the Democratic Party is forced to open its "Big Tent" to allow voices from all ideological perspectives in, many can't seem to handle that.

My issue is this: If we want a viable progressive coalition that has the ability to push progressive legislation through Congress, then we have to work hard at the local and state levels to get more progressives elected to Congress.

Until this happens, we're stuck in this trajectory.

It's easy and foolish to blame just Obama. He's one man. He's not Congress, and he's not the Judiciary.

We need more progressives with a viable voice in the halls of Congress in order to affect real change.

Many of us have found ourselves repeating this over and over again, and it has fallen on deaf ears of those here at DU and others in progressive circles who simply cannot come to grips with this reality.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hugabear (Original post)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 07:41 PM

56. But we had one when Obama was first elected. That congress did more than an congress before

or since! HOWEVER We had a President who was too interested in compromising.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hugabear (Original post)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 10:26 PM

65. +++1,000,000 nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hugabear (Original post)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 10:28 PM

66. By my count you only need about 30 of them, seriously.

All it takes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread