HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » merrily » Journal
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU
Page: 1 2 3 Next »


Profile Information

Member since: Wed Jun 20, 2012, 02:49 AM
Number of posts: 7,831

Journal Archives

Anyone have info about Cheung, candidate for Lt. Gov?

Looking around the net a bit, I would go with Kerrigan but that is superficial. I don't like to make a snap judgment.

If you live in Cambridge, where he has been city councillor or have any info about him for any other reason, please share.

Why is the Atheists and Agnostics Group under Religion and Spirituality?

A few posters invited me to post here. That's when I noticed that this group is under Religion, exactly where I would never look for it.

BTW, I am not an atheist, but I am "atheist friendly."

Massachusetts Democratic Primary September 9 . Post about your faves.

Great resource for 2014 primary and general election info.


For Governor, I think I am voting for Berwick, the only gubernatorial candidate who advocates single payer. I don't agree with him on everything and he'll lose, of course, because the money is going to Coakley and Grossman. (Money always hates the left.)

However, I will vote for him anyway, just to show some in Massachusetts are for single payer.




I see primaries as the golden opportunity for Democrats to show what they really want, without worrying that their vote might help the right.

Who are your faves in the primary--not necessarily only for governor--and why?

Hi. I saw Most Wanted Man this week and recommend it.

As you film fans probably know, it was Philip Seymour Hoffman's final film and some say his best performance ever. I don't know about that. I always love his performances. But he was damned good in this film. His fans will love it, I think.

If anyone has seen it, I would love your thoughts on who was "the most wanted man."


Question submitted by merrily

The text of this question will be publicly available after it has been reviewed and answered by a DU Administrator. Please be aware that sometimes messages are not answered immediately. Thank you for your patience. --The DU Administrators

If you drop labels and don't try to change minds, USians poll liberal by something like 70%

Poll on issues, rather than labels, and don't propagandize and USians poll liberal overwhelmingly.

All parties have done their best to make "liberal" into a dirty word and to make words like "middle," "moderate," centrist" etc. sound like the only rational, reasonable position. They have also done their best to pretend center left is liberal--and liberal is extreme and undesirable. That did not come from the people.

I agree that Republicans lie. However, I believe that super majority rules help

conceal the truth about both successes and failures.

For just one recent example, I think it is much easier to fool the public with a cloture vote than with a vote against Warren's concrete bill seeking to make student loans more affordable. I tried, but I could not even find the yeas and nays on that cloture vote.

Before 2010, when Democrats had the Oval Office and a majority in both Houses, it was easier for Republicans to claim that Dems did little those two years but ACA. (Lily Ledbetter had already passed, but Bush vetoed. Obama signed it Inauguration Day.)

Besides, think about what you are saying. We have a situation now where very little that we like gets done for he benefit of Americans and Republicans already lie to blame failures on Dems and take credit for whatever successes, if any, make it past the cloture rules.

You are saying it would be worse for Americans if good things actually do get done for Americans, like more affordable student loans, and Republicans continue lying, which they already do anyway? How would that be worse for Americans?

Excuse? I posted a substantive reply, which you ignored. For what do I need an excuse?

Since you chose to go that way, though, what is your excuse for ignoring everything in my post, criticizing me for what I did not address, then bringing up an entirely new point? What about what you never addressed?

I offer you this deal. Support your own claim that McGovern and Mondale lost those elections because they were liberals rather than simply posting a meme and expecting it to go unchallenged. Then rebut my points about why a tunnel vision view of the McGovern run doesn't prove that McGovern lost because he was a liberal. That is only respectful of the effort that I put into my prior post. Then, ask me to discuss the Mondale loss. (The Mondale loss ainst the Gipper, former head of the actors' union, former friendly host of of a respected television show, like GE Theater, that came into America's living rooms every week when there were only 3 networks competing for the attention of all Americans, and former Governor of California, after Americans had to wait on line for gas under a Democratic President, years of the hostage crisis, etc.--I imagine some of those things impacted Mondale's run, as well as Lee Atwater etc.)

I will then be happy to examine more fully whether Mondale ran as a liberal at alll; and, if so, whether Mondale lost to the Gipper because Mondale was a liberal and not for other reasons.

I know the claims about Mondale and McGovern were convenient claims for conservative Democrats to make, especially those who wanted to run for the Presidency from Southern states. However, they do not stand up to analysis, unless you use tunnel vision.

As for When Kerry ran for President, Kerry was then a member of the Senate New Democrat Caucus; i.e., not holding himself out as a liberal at all. And Kerry had the endorsement of the DLC when he ran. The DLC endorsement had originally gone to Lieberman, who had been a founding member of the DLC. However, I see that as a courtesy given Lieberman because it was clear that Lieberman never had a chance at the nom.

When Lieberman dropped out, which was relatively early in the primary, New Democrat Kerry got the DLC endorsement for that primary. So, Kerry never ran for President as a lliberal. Also, Kerry was from the Northeast in general and Massachusetts in particular, a region and a state that many political analysts had considered a dead zone for Presidents after the South went solid red.

Besides, some think that election was also stolen, though in a different state. So, the Kerry run is like the Gore run, not like the McGovern run. IOW, it hurts the meme rather than helping it.

Reagan was the reason that the Democratic Party just had to go right in order to win Presidential elections. Since Reagan though, several New Democrats ran for President as New Democrats. They were Clinton, Gore and Kerry. Of those three, only Clinton won. In 2008, Obama ran to the left of Hillary. (For purposes of this analysis, it does not matter if Obama is in fact to Hillary's left. All that matters is whether voters perceived him as to Hillary's left; and they did.)

Hillary lost the primary in 2008 and Obama won the general.

After he won in 2008, Obama said he, too, was a New Democrat. Then, he won in 2012. However, by then, he was unopposed in the primary and a war time incumbent-and no war time incumbent has ever lost a Presidential election in the US. Besides, there was that handy recording of Romney dissing 47% of Americans, including vets and seniors.

So, since Reagan, New Democrats have not proven their point about needing to go right to win Presidential elections at all. Still, the meme gets repeated as though its truth were self-evident. It isn't. It requires proof, and that is lacking.

There is a difference between vetoing because you do not believe a bill should pass

and vetoing funding to try to get the resignation of an elected official, maybe even an appointed official, who heads an agency that was set up to serve the public.

It is the job of an elected President or Governor to veto a bill he or she does not believe should pass because the bill is not in the best interests of the people. It is not the job of a President or Governor to try to remove officials the people have elected, leaving an agency that serves the people without funding in the bargain.

As far as I know, whenever President Obama has threatened a veto, it has been because he does not believe the bill should ever pass, not because he is trying to accomplish something totally unrelated to that bill. IOW, his veto threats, whether you agree with them or not, are an ordinary part of doing the job that the Constitution of the United States describes.

What if Obama said he would veto a bill funding the military unless McConnell, or even Secretary Hagel, resigns? And then did veto, leaving the military unfunded?

I am not sure how I feel about the Perry indictment specifically. However, I know that the two things you are trying to equate, namely Perry's veto threat in this case and Obama's veto threats are not similar at all.

Sounds like pure DLC/Third Way/New Democrat.

You don't think choosing Eagleton as VP had a thing to do with McGovern's loss? Or the fact that Nixon had served two terms as VP and one term as President?

Or anything else that happened in the 1960s? Parents of kids--most of whom had lived through World War II, watching their kids burn flags, use drugs, call cops pigs and associating all that with Dems?

Nooooo, the 1972 landslide was simply about McGovern being left of center. Ergo, Dems should go as far right as they possibly can.

Sorry, that tunnel vision view of history in general, politics in general and the 1972 race in particular, just doesn't work.

BTW, Gov. Wallace, a Democrat who thought the Party was too far left for him, also lost in 1972 and by a hell of a lot more votes than did McGovern.

Besides, it is not 1972 anymore. Depending upon your point of view, Gore, a center right guy, lost in 2000 or won only very, very narrowly.Obama ran to Hillary's left in 2008 and also won by a landslide-including the state of Indiana. Until McCain named Palin, Obama was even leading McCain in Alaska.

Funny how the only lessons the right draws from any election is to go further right.

Edit: As to Wallace, I meant his run in 1968.
Go to Page: 1 2 3 Next »