HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Doctor_J » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 Next »

Doctor_J

Profile Information

Gender: Do not display
Hometown: MI
Home country: USA, for now
Member since: 2001
Number of posts: 31,007

Journal Archives

To which the president responded, "No, david, I don't.

Seniors who depend on Social Security are American men & women who have worked hard for 4 decades to make this a better country, and now are collecting what we as a nation owe to them. They're plenty tough enough already. The ones I need to talk tough to are the billionaires who got rich, in large measure, off of the labor of SS recipients, and to people like yourself who amke a lot of money shilling for those same billionaires. And that tough talk is coming very soon, as soon as this current deal is finalized. Consider this a head's up".

Oh, well. A guy can dream

He doesn't understand the process

...erp...He needs a Civics class...erp...He's a racist...erp...He never like Obama...erp...He's not a real Dem

But Filner saves his harshest words for his own party: A President who gives away the store before sitting down to negotiate; Democrats who had run the House for 40 years didnít understand you canít legislate as a minority; leadership wasting its time in the weeds on the process of government rather than the politics of trying to win back the House.


Here is one more thing about the difference between our party and the other one

If Bush, during his 1st term, had adopted a mirror-image agenda of Obama's (by that I mean a center-left agenda of modest gun control, expansion of SS and Medicare, large infrastructure expenditures, public school support, strengthening of environmental protections, continuation of Clinton tax rates), he would been lambasted by the Republican base, and very likely primary'd in 2004. However, had he survived the primary challenge, he might well have won re-election legitimately. As it was he governed to his base, enacted a far right government, and had to steal the 2004 election.

I didn't say that more people voted Dem

I said that all of the committed Dems voted in 2010. The Dem president and Congress, who were voted in by millions of indy's and swing voters in 2008, failed to deliver the change they promised in 2008. A typical example was a caller to Hartmann in the summer of 2010, during Brunch With Bernie. He said that he typically voted R but had voted for Obama in 2008 because he could not abide our government torturing prisoners, and had believed that Obama would summarily end that practice. Since the president had decide to continue the practice, he was going to go back to voting primarily (R). This is the kind of voter who came out for Obama in 2008 then stayed home in 2010, not the liberals.

As is starkly evident in the contrast between Bush and Obama

Bush was able to enact a far right (nearly fascist) agenda with meager or non-existent majorities in Congress, while Obama was able to do nearly nothing of a populist nature with wide majorities. So "realism" means nothing in this context.

Republicans avoid these problems by serving their base

George Bush avoided intramural squabbles by adopting a far right agenda - PATRIOT act, treasury-sucking wars, loosening of gun restrictions, top-heavy tax cuts, clamp down on dissent, union-busting, attempts to corporatize schools and SS, and so forth. He thus avoided complaints from Republicans.

Obama has chosen the opposite tack - adopt a Republican agenda, and get some Dems to sign on to deplorable policies just because he calls himself a Dem. The good news for him is that in this way he is able to enact conservative legislation with "bi-partisan" support. The downside is that he has to listen to attacks from those he is actually serving (MIC, Gun Culture, Billionaires, Hate Radio, cable "news") because he calls himself a (D), as well as those who feel betrayed (civil libertarians, liberals, the poor, seniors, ...) because they expected different things from a (D). But most of the latter group have no real voice anyway, and are denigrated by other so-called Dems who will support anything a (D) does.

It's all politics, and the president has chosen the path that works best for him. It is up to each individual to decide to follow or resist.

Also, I would NEVER denigrate the president or his policies in a discussion with a Repuke

I am not sure how I will respond when I get next week's chain e-mail subject "See - I told you Obama would cut SS". That is going to be tough.

We worked for, voted for, and donated to both times. Donated and voted D in 2010.

But his policies on education, entitlements, white collar crime, detention, prosecution of pot smokers, torture, Pentagon spending, unions, health care, and other progressive issues are a disaster for America, Americans, and the party.

Only because the president is a moderate Republican

who calls himself a Dem. If we had a (R) president who supported Gitmo, torture & rendition, domestic spying, cutting SS benefits, destruction of public schools & unions, insurance mandates, etc., then DU would be much more unified. Some folks believe that wrong is wrong, regardless of party. Others believe that a D president must be agreed with on every issue, right or wrong.

I would consider that a complete thrashing of the Repukes at this moment

If we can get the top-level revenue hikes now, with NO spending cuts until whenever, I will heap praise on Obama, Reid, and Pelosi, and look forward to the next two years with great hope.

Your rant contains an egregious lie

I kept thinking, where were all of you during the mid-terms? Obviously you did not go out to vote during the mid-terms


This is a lie, and I wish the DINOs would stop repeating it. Maybe over at Fox Nation it would fit in. The ones who didn't go to the polls in 2010 were the "Independents", whoever they are. the polling made this fact quite clear, and I personally don't know a single liberal who didn't vote in 2010. So the entire premise of this vanity post is bullshit. If I had to guess, the indys stayed home because in 2008 they were told to expect changes if Obama got elected, but instead, with solid Dem majorities in the House and Senate, almost nothing changed. Gitmo stayed open. Torture continued. Iraq dragged on. Afghanistan dragged on. We got insurance mandates instead of health care. The Bush tax cuts were extended. None of the banksters were prosecuted. No one from the Bush administration was prosecuted. Don Siegelman is still in prison. Pot smokers were hounded. And, finally, the president appeared weak by never challenging the Repukes who were soundly rebuked at the polls.

If you want the party to be unified, you should try to get the president to represent the whole party, not just the Wall Street branch. Check bvar22's tidy list of issues that could be addressed as a bone to the "far left".

Frankly you sound like a troll, and I don't think you'll miss DU that much, and vice-versa.
Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 Next »