How Democrats can impeach Obama in one easy step

[Pirate Smile]

How Democrats can impeach Obama in one easy step

by MinistryOfTruth

How Democrats can impeach President Obama in one easy step

Step #1. Do NOT vote in 2010

That is all it will take!

If you want a Republican majority in Congress, be certain to not vote in the elections this November, because that is what you will be likely to get.

And that Republican majority in Congress will not stop until they have dragged the Presidency of Barack Obama into the dirt. They will not care one bit about the harm it will do to America. A Republican majority in Congress will do nothing but work towards "Obama's Waterloo", and the people who do not vote for Democrats in 2010 will be just as responsible for it as the people who vote for Republicans. That is the reality of it, and the possibility of a GOP majority in Congress is something America can NOT afford.

But you can do something about it before it is too late.

Yes, Democrats have not done all that many of us hoped for, but no matter how upset Democrats may be about that we must admit that this incarnation of the GOP can NOT be allowed to govern. This incarnation of the GOP is flat out insane. Under no circumstances can America afford a Speaker of the House John Boehner or a Senate Majority Leader Jim DeMint. The 25% of voters, the Glenn Beck people, the reactionary right who still support the 5th worst President in American history can not be given power. They will do nothing but attempt to destroy the President, and they will cause the American people lasting harm in the certain political witch hunt that they will stage against this President.

Yes, the Democratic party is frustrating as hell, but we simply can not let this President be bogged down by the certain witch hunts that a GOP congressional majority will put it through. If the GOP takes back the House, expect the GOP to do NOTHING but pursue ginned up scandals against the President and other Democrats, in the hopes that they can take back the White House in 2012. Expect a Republican controlled congress to impeach this President for anything that seems plausible, and quite a bit of things that don't. It will not matter.

All talk of reforms will stop. All progress on vital issues facing the American people will halt. The progress that is happening so slowly now will come to an end. If you are mad that the President and Democrats in Congress are not doing enough of the right thing now just wait until this insane, pro torture, anti unemployed people GOP takes control of Congress.

Now, there are two things you can do to prevent the nightmare that a House Speaker John Boehner would certainly create.

1. Be certain to vote for Democrats in 2010!

2. GOTV and Encourage others to vote for Democrats in 2010!

Tell others that if they want do not want to see President Obama impeached by insane people they should vote for Democrats in 2010. There is no third party, and splitting the vote only gives power to the side that stands together (see, Scozzafava 2009, Ralph Nader 2000).

If the GOP takes the House they will attempt to destroy the President. They want you to vote for them as badly as they want you to NOT vote for Democrats. Just remember, every Republican in Congress will be a potential vote for Obama's impeachment, even if the charges are bullshit. That Republican in congress will be just as happy for the voters who voted for him as he will be for the voters who did not vote against him.

Already, President Obama is considered our 15th best President. I want him to be Number 1. The GOP hopes he fails and thinks the 5th worst President ever had good ideas that but didn't try hard enough. These people are dishonest, lying idiots. Don't let your indifference and the indifference of others give them the power to destroy, because if they get it they will not hesitate to use it.

I leave the floor to you.

Peace

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/7/5/881867/-How-Democrats-can-impeach-Obama-in-one-easy-step

Reading this Diary reminded me of this Issa article:

Issa has eye on subpoena team

HERSHEY, Pa.—Rep. Darrell Issa, the conservative firebrand whose specialty is lobbing corruption allegations at the Obama White House, is making plans to hire dozens of subpoena-wielding investigators if Republicans win the House this fall.

The California Republican’s daily denunciations draw cheers from partisans and bookings from cable TV producers. He even bought his own earphone for live shots. But his bombastic style and attention-seeking investigations draw eye rolls from other quarters. Now, he’s making clear he won’t be so easy to shrug off if he becomes chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee in 2011.

Issa has told Republican leadership that if he becomes chairman, he wants to roughly double his staff from 40 to between 70 and 80. And he is not subtle about what that means for President Barack Obama.
At a recent speech to Pennsylvania Republicans here, he boasted about what would happen if the GOP wins 39 seats, and he gets the power to subpoena.

“That will make all the difference in the world,” he told 400 applauding party members during a dinner at the chocolate-themed Hershey Lodge. “I won’t use it to have corporate America live in fear that we’re going to subpoena everything. I will use it to get the very information that today the White House is either shredding or not producing.”

In other words, Issa wants to be to the Obama administration what Rep. Dan Burton (R-Ind.) was to the Clinton administration — a subpoena machine in search of White House scandals.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0610/38697.html#ixzz0rDAV2rvP

[MannyGoldstein]

1. Ooooh... If I don't vote for incumbents, Sarah Palin is our next president!

I'm sure that the Republicans could fuck this up worse - but for the life of me, I can't figure out how.

If the goddamn incumbents want my goddamn vote, then they need to fucking do something for the middle class. Now.

[nemo137]

6. Palin wasn't mentioned in the OP or the linked Kos piece.

What was mentioned was the very real difference between a Dem controlled congress and a Rep controlled congress. Spinelessness and chokepoints and jackass self-important senators and blue dogs are frustrating beyond all fucking belief. The Republicans fucking shutting down government and going on witch hunts is disastrous.

There are all kinds of ways the Republicans could fuck this up worse. They will do their best to burn the country to the ground - not because they're devoted to some theoretical ideas about bipartisanship or not rocking the boat, but because the they do not believe that you or I are full fucking citizens.

Yeah, this might be fear mongering, but if you don't feel a little bit of fear at the prospect of a Republican controlled congress, you're stunningly jaded, and how much worse it will be is going to come as a rude shock.

[MannyGoldstein]

8. I'm tired of 'Democrats' taking my vote for granted

Why should I be blamed if they refuse to work for my vote? They promise stuff, then they moon me once in office.

[nemo137]

28. It's still in your self-interest to vote Dem

It's shitty, but there is no conceivable confluence of events where the Republicans gaining power in Congress works out well for you, unless you're a nutbag evangelical or make "fuck you" money.

And if you still can't bring yourself to vote Dem based on that, think about everyone who, again, the Republican base doesn't think are actual citizens - immigrants, LGBT people, non-Christians, women, the working poor, indigenous people, basically anyone who isn't a very specific type of white, upper-class, Christian male.

[nightrain]

34. guilt-tripping?

[nemo137]

50. Intense irritation.

Making your decision on whether to vote or who to vote for based on if an organization takes your vote for granted is fucking selfish. Electoral politics in a republic is not about one's feelings. It's about creating a better society, a society that we can live with. Voting is a moral action - there's no way around that. It's about balancing competing priorities and trying to expand the opportunities of people to determine the course of their own lives unimpeded by oppression or bigotry or the dead hand of history. Focusing on "what are they doing for the middle class" or "taking my vote for granted" is morally bankrupt.

[nightrain]

61. so you say.... guilt tripping, and fear-mongering? I should vote against my values

and priorities?

Speak for yourself. You have too many "you" words. Learn how to use "I" statements.

[nemo137]

71. I think that the claim that R's and D's are substantially the same is inaccurate.

I think that voting based on how much one feels validated by a political organization is moronic. I feel that doing so is operating from a position of intense privilege, and has the potential to be an act of cutting off your nose to spite your face, but also spiting the faces of people much worse off. I also feel that talking about "I" statements and "you" statements is less than helpful in political discussion - for the same reasons that voting based on ones feelings is counterproductive at best.

[nightrain]

77. it's not "I feel that". It's "I feel ______ (a feeling word, like "sad", scared, hurt)

And I vote on my values and priorities. And if Obama keeps on as he has been for 18 months, he certainly will not have earned my vote. Period. End of story. Get off my back. Accept it. Live with it. Quit with the guilt-tripping and scare tactics.

[nemo137]

88. Your vote is your business.

Attempting to police how I speak in a political discussion is inappropriate. My belief, for what its worth, for the last time, is that a vote based on whether a politician or party takes your vote for granted, or based on the idea that there is no meaningful difference between the parties, comes from a position of intense privilege, and has the effect of harming already powerless groups.

[Hekate]

99. You, too. Stay home with the cat. The rest of us have work to do.

[Chef Eric]

127. Pressing a button for a 2nd rate Democratic candidate is "work"?

Are you going to tell me that it's in my "best interests" to vote for my local Democratic candidates?

You don't even know who my local Democratic candidates are.

[BzaDem]

179. "Are you going to tell me that it's in my best interests to vote for my local Democratic candidate"?

YES.

Any other questions?

[Chef Eric]

245. How can you tell me to vote for someone, when you don't know who that someone is?

[mkultra]

152. not voting IS voting republican. If the republicans mirror your values,

just vote for them

[phleshdef]

214. Not voting at all is a value-less position. If you don't vote, you have no real values.

[Chef Eric]

246. That's bullshit.

Are you going to tell me that someone who does volunteer work in his community has "no values"? Someone who teaches semi-literate adults how to read and write has "no values"? Someone who donates money to civil rights organizations has "no values"?

Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit, bullshit, bullshit.

[phleshdef]

248. If he refuses to vote, he refuses to give any of those items the substantial support they need.

[Chef Eric]

251. Keep telling yourself that.

Keep telling yourself that voting for Democratic politicians (even the very worst ones) is a panacea for all of society's ills. Keep telling yourself that a citizen can do more good by pushing a button for a Democrat-in-name-only than by actually getting off his ass and doing some volunteer work to help the people in his community. Keep doing this. It will make you feel much better, because life will suddenly seem much simpler.

[TBF]

128. Define "better".

I challenge you to show me how we are better off now than 2008. I agree that it is nice to have a president who can pronounce the word library and maybe even reads occasionally, but aside from that let's see some details. We are still at war, banks have been bailed out, our Gulf is ruined, unemployment is high, teachers are being fired, and social security is about to be gutted. Show me a reason to vote for either party.

[Dawgs]

134. How about the fact that if McCain and the Republicans were in power we would be in a THIRD WAR.

Right now, things are really shit, but that's because of the Republicans; not because of what the Democrats haven't been able to fix.

I would argue that your list, which includes some things Democrats have no control over, would be twice as long if Republicans were still in control.

That's a pretty good reason to vote for Democrats over Republicans.

[TBF]

170. And the sky could fall tomorrow too. No, I didn't ask for hyperbole,

I asked for concrete examples of improvements.

[Dawgs]

220. I wasn't responding to your question. I was replying to the rest of your post, which is shit.

Things are much better by the fact that they aren't MUCH worse.

I can't help you if you don't see it.

[TBF]

222. "Things are much better by the fact that they aren't MUCH worse" is your answer?

Talk about shit. If that's the best you can do kiss your election good-bye right now and start working on 2016.

[Chef Eric]

123. It's pretty presumptuous to tell people what their self-interests are.

And as far the marginalized people in our society are concerned, there are better ways to help them than to vote for second-rate Democrats. For example, you can volunteer or donate to the ACLU, the Alliance for Justice, and United for a Fair Economy.

[nemo137]

141. And none of those are bad things.

But I stand by the statement that in general, unless you are an evangelical Christian with an intense investment in seeing a theocracy or incredibly rich, your interests will be better served by voting for a Democrat.

[treestar]

156. None of that is better than preventing a Republican majority

Very inefficient, ultimately, the ACLU can only take people to court, which is even slower than Congress.

[goclark]

132. Bingo!

One thing we know for sure ~ Rethugs don't like people that care about any of the above issues you mentioned.

Democrats may not do each and every thing on our calendar but at least they don't come out right out and say they HATE those of us mentioned in your post.

When was the last time that you heard a Republican say ~ "Let's think about helping the Homeless, they should be given some consideration!"

Since they control the $$'s in this country, they truly believe they have been crowned Kings Of America. They are lost in the '20's and they don't want any of us around.

For sure they could care less about Ms goclark ~ African American.
Well let me clarify ~ they love Puppet Clarence and they keep Puppet Mike Steele.
And of course they love Puppet Condi. :puke:

[NorthCarolina]

188. It's not in the Public Interest to support either party really.

Neither party represents the interests of the public at large. If on the other hand you are a Corporate or Wall Street big wig and reside in the upper 3%, then you have the luxury of two parties beholden to your desires.

[nemo137]

227. No, but one party has a much more restrictive view of who constitutes a human being

and letting them get power is unconscionable. The idea that there's no difference between the two is so incredibly short-sighted and narrow that I can't even fathom letting that be the guiding factor in one's voting.

[Hekate]

98. Then just stay home and grouse to your cat, and let the rest of us get on with the work.

[treestar]

159. This is not a consumer item

Your vote is not currency to obtain anything other than the representative of your choosing. If you aren't in the majority on the particular election, you don't get even that.

Thinking of one's vote that way is insane.

[vaberella]

252. Exactly. So don't vote for them like the OP says.

Actually, why don't you run.

[rhett o rick]

244. The question is: do you support "we the people" or not. Currently the

Democratic Congress is not. It is time to kick their asses out. Whose side are you on?

[nemo137]

247. Kick their asses out and then...?

Seriously. We kick them out and then what? It's not like we have a straight referendum on whether or not to retain a member of congress, it's run as choice A or B (and occasionally C and onward). Saying "kick them out," in the absence of profound, not to say miraculous, changes to the electoral and legislative processes is frankly juvenile.

[rhett o rick]

253. STOP confusing me with reality. nm

[pocoloco]

10. No balls....

No bucks!!

[SPedigrees]

38. You can't figure out how? You must have been blind for the past decade. nt

[MannyGoldstein]

40. Yes, it's so much better now

Please remind me of the improvements, thanks!

[SPedigrees]

63. I'll give you one, the most important one.

Appointing Sotomayor and Kagan to the Supreme Court. Now just think about who Bush would have appointed and what it would have meant. Want to see more decisions like the ruling on Corporations=Persons? Want to see Roe v Wade struck down?

Now take off your blinders if you're interested in knowing the other fundamental differences between the Obama administration vs Bushco.

[MannyGoldstein]

69. If the 'Dems' did their job and filibustered the crazies

Roberts and Alito, we wouldn't be so fucked right now.

I'm tired of being a doormat. I hope to God that most of these scoundrels get primaried.

[Hekate]

101. By what mechanism do Dems filibuster members of the Supreme Court?

[MannyGoldstein]

113. Their appointments require Senate approval, yes? nt

[suzie]

133. Oh, that's not fair. You're only supposed to mention the Supreme Court when blaming Al Gore for

election 2000. Or defending Ralph Nader.

In all other discussions, the shade tree sitters consider it totally and completely out of order to notice any importance of the Supreme Court.

It doesn't fit in with their desire for destruction of the Democratic Party.

[Pirate Smile]

68. Here you go - I'll let Rachel Maddow say it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ALSi9B71xg

[Hekate]

2. Issa wants to be a subpoena machine and do a Clinton on Obama; I rec this and it's still negative?

Interesting.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

3. NOW, it's positive.

Not for long, I suspect...

[HughMoran]

14. The message suggests that we support Democrats

I thought that was the mission of this site?

[Pirate Smile]

21. Yeah, but it certainly isn't the mission of about a third of the commenters.

[HughMoran]

23. Getting closer to 2/3

DU is changing for the worse.

[azmouse]

90. +1

:thumbsup:

[rpannier]

4. he wants to roughly double his staff from 40 to between 70 and 80

I see.
Increasing the deficit with non-real/productive jobs

Isn't that what the republikkans said about government jobs?

[depakid]

5. Ironically enough- the best chance Obama has to win re-election is with a Republican House

Showcases the nutters and gives the administration an excuse for their incessant pandering to the corporate right and watering down legislation.

[ProSense]

9. Right, because a Republican Congress is what Americans need.

"Showcases the nutters and gives the administration an excuse for their incessant pandering to the corporate right and watering down legislation."

How does that work?

[rpannier]

11. Don't you listen to Bill Kristol???

He explained why the Obama Administration is hoping the Dems lose.
So he can get that tax-and-spend leftie Pelosi out of the leadership office and replaced with a sensible, fiscal conservative republikkan

[depakid]

13. Didn't say that at all- just making a political calculation

Should the Dems lose the house, Obama's re-election chances are far better. People won't want to return to a Republican majority in every branch of government, and that will be a strong motivation even if his polls numbers are stagnant in the low 40's.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

18. Clinton DID get re-elected largely because of Republican overreach in 1996

And they remained in power in Congress for only a *short* decade afterward- and then they helped mastermind the 2000 coup that got Buscho installed. :eyes: No matter what anybody thinks of the Democrats, can we just skip past the whole GOP-winning-back-power thing and just try to prevent it from happening in the first place PLEASE?! We don't need a re-run of everything that happened between 1994-2006 (except for our Democratic POTUS being re-elected, of course). I know some Democrats just plain suck and that they probably shouldn't even really be allowed to call themselves Democrats but keeping a party in power that's at least trying to do something productive and good for the rest of the country even if it isn't everything that everybody wants in one fell swoop is still 10,000X better IMHO than having a party in power that's not at all about trying to do ANYTHING productive for and wants nothing more than to overturn the results of the last election (like they tried to do with Clinton) and attempt to drag us back down into the depths of the primordial cesspool where they're spawned!
:banghead:

[ProSense]

46. I realize that, but

as you said, what good does it do? The media pushed that meme about how great it is that the WH and Congress be in the hands of different parties.

It's completely bogus.

[Hekate]

102. It's increasingly clear that there's a clique of DUers who would rejoice if Dems were out of power

Obama, Pelosi, the entire House and Senate could be gone and there are some folks here who'd party like there was no tomorrow; and as soon as their hangovers cleared, they'd get back into their comfortable mudholes and bitch about the state of the nation some more.

Because yanno, politics is a spectator sport. Better to just concede the game to the overlords.

:argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh:

Hekate

[dionysus]

243. but in a position of no power, railing against the man, that's their natural habitat.

you get to be pure and never have any worry about winning.

[Pirate Smile]

16. Clinton got impeached after he was reelected. I'm sure this time they will want to do it before or

during the 2012 campaign. They will still have their crazy RW to suck up to along with Faux & Rush. They would probably try to do it over the "big" Sestak-nothing crap that they still try to talk about as if it was something just horrible. :eyes:

[depakid]

17. I suspect that would be their first order of business if they get in

These fools just can't help themselves... even if it meant a very short tenure in power.

[glinda]

193. They will and also use it to stall everything and rid Gov of all Dems.

[Radical Activist]

55. No way. Obama is already showing how nuts the GOP is.

That's the impact of always reaching across the aisle to ask for cooperation and getting venom in return. People see what's happening.

The best way for Obama to be re-elected is to pass the agenda he ran on and that's only going to happen with a more progressive Congress.

[depakid]

65. LOL. No, he's been enabling & legitimizing them- and even adopting their policies!

*That's* the reason we're even talking about this, instead of how much we're going to increase our majorities by in November!

[Radical Activist]

74. Regulating Wall St, credit cards, banking, insurance and clean energy were all top GOP agenda items.

Sure, I can see how Obama totally adopted the Republican agenda. :eyes:

What planet are you on?

[depakid]

83. Most people know full well that this bill doesn't effectively "regulate" Wall Street

and no amount of prevarication is going to fool them (assuming that it passes).

But of course, you miss the point about enabling and legitimizing Republicans completely, as administration apologists are (and were during Clinton) wont to do. Hence, we have a fight on our hands- which is something no one would have been credibly able to say a year ago (when Republicans were on the verge of being relegated back to the fringe for a generation).

[Radical Activist]

87. I didn't miss your point. It was simply a ridiculous one.

No, the average voter won't believe that Obama is enabling Republicans while he passes agenda items that go against everything they stand for.

I really wish most voters were reading socialist blogs that will always claim any reform isn't enough. But they don't. Most liberal pundits are praising the passage of Wall Street reform even as they recognize the compromises. Most Democratic voters have enough perspective to not make the perfect the enemy of the good. I hope you gain that ability soon.

[Hekate]

105. RA, thanks for your series of posts here

[Radical Activist]

191. Wow. Thanks. n/t

[depakid]

114. Some people simply refuse to learn the lessons of 1994, 2000 and 2002

and yet are always full of cliches.

Some even have the temerity to use screen names and avatars that imply the very disngenuousness embodies in the policies, procedures that are clear for all to see,.

Tell ya what mate, you and the conservadems are fooling very few- and fewer every day- which is why you've been hemorrhaging support and enthusiasm for the better part of a year- and with the Gulf and the economy showing every sign of not improving (thanks to in no small part to all the corporate right pandering) it will be impressive if decent and honest Democrats up and down the ticket- on the federal, state and local level somehow manage to stem the losses.

In a redistricting election- which is what makes all of the prevarication, miscalculations and obvious complicity all that much worse.

Even as he teabaggers are some of the best players on The Democratic party's team- some in the Democratic party almost as adept at grasping defeat from the jaws of victory- on every level- time after time.

[Radical Activist]

194. Nothing like Obama's agenda passed in those years.

The comparison is far-fetched. Maybe you have too much baggage from the past. Maybe you're so weighed down with cynicism that you're incapable of seeing any progressive victory for what it is. That's the impression I get when you fail to respond to my points and retreat into more-liberal-than-thou cliches.

Recognizing that there's something good in a law that passes doesn't mean I'm giving up on fighting for more. Occasionally celebrating a victory usually helps lead to more progress. Having a sense of perspective doesn't make me less liberal than you.

[dionysus]

242. nicely put. very nicely stated.

:thumbsup:

[treestar]

158. Well you see a Republican Congress would get us the public option

:sarcasm:

[JTFrog]

135. He enabled, energized and legitimized!!! Energized and legitimized!!!

[Radical Activist]

196. lol

nice pic.

[AtomicKitten]

7. I do believe some here would be pleased if Pres Obama was impeached. nt

[HughMoran]

12. Thrilled I'm sure n/t

[suzie]

136. +500,000

[depakid]

15. Conspiracy theory and false attribution won't get you very far

but I think it might be accurate to say that if there were a process to roll him with say, a fighter like Hillary (as the Australians did with Kevin Rudd) there would be people who supported that.

Of course, that's not the American system- so the point is moot.

[Pirate Smile]

19. Gawd, that is hilarious. Because Hillary would be further to the left and have a foreign policy

more agreeable to the left?

Let's get serious here. I like Hillary fine but she is with the military and Gates in trying to get Obama off his timeline for Afghanistan. Rolling him - which is NEVER going to happen - would end up with an even more pissed off left wing when it comes to foreign policy.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

24. If Hillary were POTUS

I guarantee that some people would be as mad at her because of some of her more moderate-conservative policy stands (maybe even moreso) as they are at Obama right now not to mention the fact that she'd likely have much of the same cabinet members as well.

[Pirate Smile]

I know. She would be getting the same crap or worse.

[HughMoran]

36. I'm going to say moreso based on the hatred of Bill here

HCR II for Hillary would have been a fiasco as well.

[Hekate]

106. It would have been unbelievably painful to watch HCR II unfold

[Exilednight]

42. I agree, and that is why many of who supported Obama are now getting .........

irritated. We voted for him because he was suppose to be to the left of Hillary and promised not to let the "old ways of Washington" get in the way of running the country. Yet, the first thing he did was go with beltway insiders for many of his staff and cabinet choices - Rahm, Hillary, Susan Rice, Salazar, LaHood, Hilda Solis, Eric Holder and Orszag are all from inside the beltway. Not a lot of change when 8 out of your 15 cabinet positions are filled by people who have formerly worked in DC.

I was hoping he would change that, but it's back to the old ways.

[HughMoran]

47. Only complete novices can do a good job

That's how we hire people in my company - we look for people who don't know anything about the job - it's good for getting things done.

[depakid]

That's a fair description of Obama's qualifications, though I'm really surprised you posted it

He had never run anything before- so expecting him to be a adept executive was unrealistic.

Sometimes it seems wonders never cease.

[Radical Activist]

62. Wasn't that a McCain/Palin line?

Obama already has more progressive accomplishments under his belt in 2 years than Clinton did in 8 so I think he's off to a good start.

[depakid]

67. oo - the "snappy" McCain/Palin comeback!

:rofl:

Sorry to tell you- but it's just a fact, Jack.

One that has become all too clear- especially to residents surrounding the Gulf of Mexico.

[Radical Activist]

70. Yes, it is a fact

that you're repeating the cheap shots of the McCain/Palin campaign. Want to add a line about how meaningless it is to be a community organizer?

And it's also a fact that Obama's lack of experience in executive office hasn't stopped him from already racking up more progressive accomplishments than Clinton had in two terms. It's just a fact.

Hey, did Clinton ever use his time in office to get Exxon to pay up for the Valdez spill? Look it up and you'll realize that Obama is doing a better job even on the BP gusher.

[depakid]

75. And another one! LOL

Better keep on repeating all those "accomplishments" and how good they are for the people on main street (as opposed to corporate interests)

-Democrats are going to need *something* to get all their alienated out to volunteer and to the polls this November. Better hope after all that's happened that it'll be enough.

[Radical Activist]

81. Yes, another fact

that you failed to respond to.

I did get a good laugh out of your suggestion that the public would be happier with Hillary. I really appreciate Obama repairing the damage from Clinton-era deregulation. I hope he gets to the media next since Clinton's media consolidation laws did so much damage. If Hillary governs anything like her husband then I'm pretty certain a sharp turn to the right with her won't help.

[Exilednight]

92. I never considered Bill Clinton to be that progressive to begin with, so to argue that ...........

Obama is more progressive that Clinton isn't saying a whole hell of a lot. Clinton made a lot of short term gains economically, but it cost us big time further down the road. Economically, Bill was just right of George H W Bush, and just left of junior.

[Radical Activist]

Correct that Bill Clinton was not progressive.

Much of what Obama is doing to regulate industry is reversing deregulation of the Clinton years. That's why it's so easy to say that Obama is the most progressive President in at least 30 years, if not more. It's also obvious that Obama is to the left of the Senate, which is the main roadblock to a progressive agenda.

[suzie]

137. Isn't that one of the big right wing talking points? This is Obama's Katrina.

[sufrommich]

120. So we should stick with dems with executive experience?

You seem to have a bitterness toward Obama that has nothing to do with anything,really.

[Beacool]

142. And some of you people still preferred him?

As Romney used to repeat ad nauseam, Obama never even ran a lemonade stand.

I still believe that experience DOES matter in life.

But, we got what we got and now the left will have to live with it.

To me Obama was always about Obama and getting himself elected to higher and higher political office without actually putting in the time and work that it took to do the job. I wonder what he'll ran for next.......

:eyes:

[dionysus]

150. are you saying he's lazy?

NO BANKY for you today!!
:hi:

[Beacool]

163. No, I'm saying that he barely sat at his previous job long enough to learn the ropes

before he felt that he was ready to run one of the largest economies in the world at one of its worst times when he barely had time to warm his senate seat.

I don't think that he's a bad guy and I know that he means well, but knowing how to navigate around the sharks in Congress, big business and even within the WH, takes years of knowhow. Hillary had it in spades, Obama did not. Unfortunately for us, his learning curve affects us all.

Take care, sweets. It's too hot for bankies anyway (it's going to reach 100 today).

:hug:

[sufrommich]

155. Good lord. Time to stop fighting the primaries. nt

[Beacool]

160. It's not about the primaries.

It's about nominating someone, not on actual years of work experience, but on personality and vague promises of hope and change.

So now that left bemoans the fact that he's not as progressive as they expected him to be? Well, color me not surprised.......

:eyes:

[sufrommich]

164. Beacool, you and I were both Hillary supporters during the

primaries. I had to leave this site frequently because of the attacks against her. But I will say this, Hillary would be getting the same treatment from the left and the right that Obama is getting today. He won the primaries, he's a democratic president, he's pushed through major legislation. Both Hillary and Obama had platforms that were more alike than different and he knows how to run the government. Quoting Mitt Romney doesn't make it true.

[Beacool]

169. Of course she would be getting the same treatment around here.

Most dislike either Clinton. I just find it amusing how some of those who used to trash Hillary mercilessly during the primaries are now disappointed in the guy they worked so hard to elect. Me, I'm not disappointed, I never expected much from him in the first place.

:hi:

[Tarheel_Dem]

205. They have their own site now, and you guys are all best buds, aren't you?

Perhaps you could take it up with them? Newsflash: They still don't like Hillary, but she's in great company, because they don't like Obama either. Who gives a crap? Why the admins continue to let you re-fight the primaries here, every chance you get, continues to baffle many.

[Beacool]

210. Who's "they"?

What are you talking about?

:shrug:

[dionysus]

224. break it up guys, break it up! don't make me put up my dukes!!

[Beacool]

229. I was minding my own business, until I was surreptitiously attacked on the left flank.

There's no justice, I tell you!!!

:(


:P

[dionysus]

225. do i have to separate you two? put up yer dukes!!111!!

:D

[Tarheel_Dem]

226. Yes. Beacool is being mean to me, and I think she swiped "banky", when I...

wasn't looking. :cry:

[Beacool]

228. Cry Baby!!!

You attacked me first.....

:eyes:



:7

[dionysus]

241. but did you take banky? i don't want to have a time out.

:D

[Beacool]

256. I didn't take banky.

You didn't give me one this time around.

:-(

[dionysus]

257. ok, you're not grounded any more.

here's banky!

:hi:

[Beacool]

262. Banky is back!!!!!!

And its mine, ALL mine!!!!

:woohoo:

I'm not sharing!!!

:mad:



:hi:

[suzie]

172. Nor did Hillary.

She had no more executive experience than Obama.

[Beacool]

211. I beg to differ, but you are entitled to your opinion.

As am I.

;-)

[suzie]

219. Hillary wasn't even the First Lady with the most executive experience.

Did you believe that Lady Bird Johnson should have become president?

Because she had many years of experience at being the CEO of a pretty large business.

Lady Bird was in fact waaaayyyy more qualified than Hillary.

[Exilednight]

86. You can find qualified people without Washington experience. This was one of Obama's campaign .....

promises, and one that Congress didn't have a whole lot of say on. Seriously, if Hillary, the one target that every rethug might hate equal to or more than Obama at the time, could get nominated to Secretary of State, then why couldn't he of put someone there who was not a beltway insider?

Before anyone jumps on me, I am just using Hillary as an example.

I can understand putting two or three insiders in your cabinet, it only makes sense, but when you comprise more than half of your staff of beltway insiders, then that's a broken campaign promise and change I can not believe in.

[Pirate Smile]

72. One big problem is that people thought his election was going to somehow change Congress

and its requirements to pass legislation. That, of course, didn't happen. Congress is Congress and to get a lot of the changes he wanted, he had to get legislation passed. Stirring speeches and the bully-pulpit isn't going to change the legislative requirements. The sausage factory is never pretty.

It is the same as expecting he all by himself could cause a breakout of bipartisan cooperation. He could try but Republicans decided before he ever became President that they would make sure that idea died - and they could totally control whether there would be any bipartisan cooperation.

[Radical Activist]

76. There's so much energy that could be used to pressure Congress

instead of the simple-minded blaming of Obama for everything. It's a pretty dumb strategy if your goal is to pass progressive legislation.

[depakid]

80. Last I looked, Democrats had huge majorities in Congress

and a once in a lifetime mandate....

If the administration and Congress couldn't get popular and effective policies through- they could have made major campaign issues of them- and taken it back to the voters with the credibility to say increase our majorities" so we can get 'e done.

Kind of hard to convincingly say that now.

[Hekate]

107. Last you looked it was through a telescope from a foreign land. With a dusty lens. You're wrong

... and repeating erroneous statements like "huge majority" and "once in a lifetime mandate" doesn't make them any less erroneous.

Hekate

[depakid]

117. It's become a clean and keener lens, with perspective that one can best gain from a distance

Denying the obvious- that we had (and perhaps still have -despite the missteps and the pandering) a once in a lifetime mandate and huge majorities (at least in party name) won't make it untrue-

You probably know that as well, since you've chosen Hekete for your screen name, and on my part, I've enjoyed reading your posts over the years.

Things like doors, gates, transitions, crossroads- births- and similar deals- these are the realms of Hekete (and if we ever had a chance at that on a policy and procedural level, it was 2009-10).

[dionysus]

147. there never was this magical mandate. the blue dogs are a joke.

we never had the 60 votes.

i'm pretty sure you are quite aware of this.

[Tarheel_Dem]

230. And he's including Liebermann as a sure thing progressive vote?

For the sake of this country, I hope he/she remains in a foreign land, and lends his/her support to Kevin Rudd.

[Exilednight]

89. This President does not use the bully pulpit as he should. When HCR was in .............

full swing debate, how many times did he get up in front of the nation and try to keep the pressure on Congress? It only happened the one time he held a joint session of congress. He pretty much took a hands off approach and let Harry and Nancy do 99% of the heavy lifting. How much arm twisting went on behind closed doors? No one on this board can answer for sure, but I know that anyone who is capable of critical thinking would surmise that it probably wasn't much, if any at all.

As far as your remark about bipartisan support, I believe Obama to be a pretty smart guy, but all we kept hearing about was how much the President wanted bipartisan support for the HCR bill. Now, according to you, "Republicans decided before he ever became President that they would make sure that idea died" If they decided before he became President, then why does he still keep trying? He's going to try again with immigration reform, but it's going to fail again. Republicans will block and use the excuse that measure doesn't go far enough and that a federal law should look more like Arizona's law. Sadly, all rethugs will fall in line and so will a handful of Democrats. Worst of all, Obama will stay mostly mute on the subject since he's already given his big speech, and rethug leaders will be out there shaping public opinion over swing voters - and the worst part is that a majority of swing voters will believe the rethugs since no one besides Harry and Nancy are out there making noise. Someone needs to inform our President that he, not Harry and Nancy, needs to be the one out there selling the product to the American people.

The three things a President can do, but Obama seems to not do, is use the bully pulpit, twist arms, and knock heads together. LBJ was the master of two of the three. Obama is a gifted speaker and could use the bully pulpit like it has never been used before, and the purpose of Rahm was to knock heads and twist arms. To be quite honest, it doesn't seem like there is much of any of that going on.

[Radical Activist]

96. You forgot the State of the Union address.

So Obama spoke before two different joint sessions of Congress about the same issue. That's unusual.

I also recall seeing Obama on endless TV and news shows. He was getting around so much that he was accused over overexposure. I guess you don't remember that. I've noticed this talking point about Obama not using the bully pulpit getting repeated often, but it doesn't hold water.

Here's a reminder of what really happened..

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/09/obama-overexposure.html

Obama Over-Exposure?

September 16, 2009 8:33 AM

This Sunday, President Obama will be interviewed on five shows -- ABC News’ “This Week With George Stephanopoulos,” CNN’s “State of the Nation”, CBS’s “Face the Nation”, NBC’s “Meet the Press” and Univision’s “Al Punto with Jorge Ramos."

It's a rare feat called "the Full Ginsburg." In modern media lore, the first time someone pulled a five-show feat was 11 years ago, in 1998, when Monica Lewinsky’s attorney William Ginsburg made the rounds to defend his client. Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, did a Full Ginsburg in 2007 after launching her presidential bid.

...“I think the worry is it’s gone beyond over exposure and now we have what I would call the ‘Obama omnipresence.’ You almost can’t escape this president,” Madden said on ABC News’ “Top Line.” “It goes beyond just cable news and it goes into whether or not you’re flipping on ESPN and you’re seeing him talk about basketball or you turn on the Lifetime channel and you hear what Michelle Obama is wearing this week. And I think that begins to wear on a lot of people.”

[Exilednight]

119. Thanks, this part of your article proves my point ...............

“In politics there’s really no such thing as over communicating, because if you are not communicating, your opponents will be,” McKinnon told ABC News. “If the president stops talking, that means his opponents will start talking. We live in 24-hour news cycles now and if the president isn’t filling the vacuum, his opponents will be.”

[Proud Liberal Dem]

249. I agree that many of his nominees haven't exactly been inspired

(other than Hillary as SOS- though I really wanted her for VP more). Some of the cabinet will undoubtedly turnover and we might get a fresher crop of people as his term in office progresses. I wonder if getting some of these former Clinton Administration members was part of a deal between Obama and Clinton for her to concede the nomination? :shrug: At any rate, I wouldn't say that I have a huge problem with any of his cabinet members and/or don't really know enough about them and their performance to date to make a judgment about them one way or another. Rice (interesting how we have yet ANOTHER foreign policy advisor named "Rice") seemed pretty bright when she helped with the Obama campaign's foreign policy during the campaign, Holder seems to be tough and smart at DOJ (and has done a good job standing up to the Republicans' BS), and Orszag sounds like he's a real policy wonk when it comes to budgeting. Pretty much the kind of people I would expect Obama to pick.

[depakid]

39. Hillary wouldn't have grovelled to the likes of Lieberman-

indeed, Lieberman wouldn't have been in his chairmanship at all after having campaigned against her.

One of Obama's biggest problems- one HE created for himself is the perception that there wouldn't be any consequences to crossing the new president- and as a result, he lost respect and credibility at the outset.

(Hillary of course was only an example that fit into the hypothetical and happened to have characteristics similar to Prime Minister Julia Gillard- just as Obama has characteristics similar to former PM Rudd).

So everyone should try not to get their knickers into too much of a twist.

[AtomicKitten]

79. "Hillary is a Lieberman Democrat"

---> http://www.irregulartimes.com/clintonliebermanletter.html

[Beacool]

143. Please, Hillary is more liberal than Obama in domestic policy.

Starting with the FISA vote.

;)

[impik]

181. These people hates Obama so much, they will say anything, just anything, no matter how untrue

Teabaggers.

[ProSense]

57. " a fighter like Hillary "

I love when people go around touting progressive power and then say something like this.

Greens for Clinton.

:rofl:

[impik]

182. No, you don't get it: By a "fighter like Hillary", they refer to

Hillary who voted for Iraq war and was 100% on the side of the Pentagon regarding Afghanistan. FIGHTER!!!

:rofl: indeed.

[Radical Activist]

216. Or Hillary who gave up talking about universal health care

for about a decade until it was politically safe again.

[Hekate]

103. Hillary? She's a hawk -- where would your "bring'em home now chant" be then?

She, like her husband, is a centrist. And, to prove her street cred or make her bones or whatever metaphor there is, when she went to the Senate she got on military-oriented committees.

Good lord. She's a fine woman, but good grief.

Hekate

[doc03]

20. I saw a Impeach Obama bumper sticker for sale at a gas station

yesterday, they don't even need a reason anymore.

[Pirate Smile]

26. No, they don't need a reason but I think I can top your bumper sticker.

I saw this one yesterday in Missouri.



We did a couple of double-takes. :wtf: and :wow:

[doc03]

31. Have you seen the one with the native Americans on it

that says they have fighting terrorism since 1492.

[Pirate Smile]

44. Well, that one makes logical sense and I think most people can see it.

:)

[dflprincess]

58. I saw several people wearing t-shirts with that on them in NYC

And I saw a lot of street vendors selling the shirts and posters of that.

[babylonsister]

116. Have they ever needed a reason, for anything?

Do they even know what reason is? Doubtful.

[sufrommich]

121. Oh, they've got a reason, it's just bad form to say it out loud. nt

[Dragonfli]

22. Very Smart - try a threat after all the broken promises

I have seen this tactic used before.
Voters who are ignored and whose needs are not met tend not to fall for the same con twice.

Why should I vote against my best interests like republicans do?

I will only vote for the Dems that try to respond to the needs of those they work for.

I will not vote for the loss of Habeas Corpus,
The transfer of my safety net to the already too wealthy,
nor the continued lack of equal liberty for those that may differ from me.


Why would I vote for someone that is destroying me and all the other NOW POOR working class?

The Democrats need a new tactic other than fear mongering.

"We are a little less evil" is not a good campaign slogan.

They need to wake up and vote the right way, not me.

[stevenleser]

94. There have been very few broken promises. Do you research anything?

This president has overwhelmingly governed like he said he was going to govern during his campaign.

The various websites that track whether campaign promises are fulfilled show that.

The evidence is not with you. Please let us know when reality beckons. Those of us already here will welcome you back.

[bvar22]

206. ?

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-june-15-2010/respect-my-authoritah

[Dragonfli]

239. They can not see or hear the truth my friend.

No matter what you show them.

[Dragonfli]

233. Just because you call something reform

And then install republican Ideas, does not mean a promise was kept.
I thought we were talking about Democrats running in '10.

Is Obama running for something?
If youy want to change the subject, well OK, he kept no promises to me - I HAVE been paying attention.

You apparently just applaud the loss of rights, torture and promises broken.

I voted for a guy that said mandates were bad (they are for me)
One who said there would be a public option

HE LIED face it.

[Dragonfli]

238. Yes ! that is why I know the promises are broken

Instituting an old republican idea is not a promise kept just because it is called reform.
Was this thread about Obama? I thought it was about the elections in '10.

Obama is not running this year you are the one whose facts are oddly off, Obama won't run again until 2012 you know.

Why so defensive of him if there is no need to be? Why to try to change the subject like that?

[Hekate]

108. Do some research at a Pulitzer Prize winning site: PolitiFact. Check the Obameter

http://www.politifact.com/

Tracking Obama’s promises
119 Promise Kept
37 Compromise
19 Promise Broken
82 Stalled
245 In the Works
3 Not yet rated

There are many other places to sort rumor from fact, and one of them is Snopes.com, known mainly as a place to debunk urban legends, although political items make a fairly regular appearance as well. I would just check to make sure whatever sites you use are nonpartisan, because naturally the ones run by conservatives are going to be very biased.

Hekate

[Dragonfli]

237. bullet points are nice but

republican ideas called reform is not what I call a promise kept, sorry.
I and most working people are not bankers and cannot afford mandated insurance with large deductibles (a republican plan made law by new dems).

nor do I agree with rendition, lack of habeas corpus and black prisons in war zones, all kept in place by the dems.

Also, I thought this thread was about Dems in the '10 elections, why are you bringing up Obama????????????????

[Hekate]

250. The bullet points are a summary of the large amount of material at the link

"Obama????????????????" was already in this thread!!!!!!!!!! :shrug:

[impik]

183. Lies, lies and more lies

He kept more campaign promises than any president in recent memory. You are full of c****.

[Dragonfli]

236. Yes the Dems have lied (was this thread about Obama? I didn't know he was running in 2010

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

209. Last time this "threat" wasn't heeded, we did wind up with George W. Bush.

You forget 2000 so soon?

[Dragonfli]

232. I am not rich - the Dems have forgotten me, You must be comfortably numb

in your suburb.

The Dems have made health care worse for people that can't afford large deductibles, and not being a banker I fail to see what they plan to do for me.
All the legislation I have seen are rehashed REPUBLICAN IDEAS, I won't vote R or R policies.

Upper class suburbanites just view corporate gifts differently than do I.

Once I had a party that worked for the working class, now I do not - only a few individuals none of whom are running in my state.

If any resurface I will vote for them.

I AM NOT GOING TO VOTE AWAY MY SAFETY NET FOR ANY PARTY!!!!

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

254. You make a lot of assumptions about me.

I'll make one about you: You're not a Democrat.

[Dragonfli]

259. I am a working class poor Democrat

not one of the preferred rich ones and so I don't count as a Dem in the "new Dem" party?

Much as I expected, as can be seen by the legislation based on republican ideas, I am no longer the "type" the Democrats want in the party, do any of you new guys even remember FDR?

If I am not welcome it should be no surprise that I will not hold rallies and GOTV for a party that no longer wants me.

The new Dems got a great deal out of me and other poor working people in 06 and 08 and now you no longer need us because of the corporate donors I assume.

It is a mistake to turn away the working poor you know, what do you suggest I register as now that you wish me to leave the party? What on my card will say FDR now that DEM party wants me gone and starving?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

260. LOL, I don't buy a word you say.

Frankly, you're playing up the class divide within the party so much, that it seems far too orchestrated - far too scripted. Either you're not a Democrat at all and you never were, or you're entirely lying about being "working class poor". Woe is me - no one listens... It's all fun when you're hiding behind the internet.

[Dragonfli]

261. I am not selling anything

I am willing to bet you don't really know anyone of my "class" so just be happy in your gated community and don't bother with me anymore.

on edit: I guess you have one point, I am no longer working and poor, just poor and on my 22nd week of unenjoyment.

I used to build nice porches and additions for people like you, I hope you enjoy what my fellow craftsman have done to your home, I am sure you talked them down in price until they made little to no money, your type always does and then people like me lose their jobs because their contractors eventually go out of business.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

266. Sure pal, whatever you say. (nt)

[TheKentuckian]

25. If you folks would spend half the energy you waste trying to guilt and fearmonger

the votes of the left on pushing for sane policy and ball busting the NewBluecrats we'd have more harmony and progress.

[HughMoran]

29. "you folks"?

Of course "we folks" do both "pushing sane policy" and "promoting Democrats".

[TheKentuckian]

148. No, you can't always do both. At some point a house divided against it's self can't stand

and when a choice must be made it is in favor of party over principle.

[HughMoran]

199. Yes, you can't always do both

...and this site exists to promote the Democrats even when they are not perfect, because having control of Congress and the White House is infinitely preferable to giving it to anti-Constitutional torturing murderers.

So what if we have a FEW bad apples, the Republicans are ALL LOCK-STEPPING BAD APPLES!!!

Can you not see this simple logic?

[TheKentuckian]

201. You can support Democrats in general and declare a good percentage of a barrel

There is plenty of room for debate on how few or many rotten apples there are but that magic spell cannot logically extend to every individual on the raw power of a letter by their name.

You can scrape bottom and argue least offensive turd but good luck with that gal is working for the people and that guy gets the job done or they represent my values and aspirations.

Where do people get the perfection crap from anyway? Who among us outline perfection and then put that as their general expectation, much less their minimal one.

The deal might be that some people's minimums and baselines are your idea of perfection and your final destination maybe a a rest stop or even a speedbump to theirs OR you are okay with a few corporate cronies dictating the present and future of the nation because you hope they will give you a cookie at some point.

[POAS]

124. "You Folks"?? Really???

What is your litmus test for ferreting out "you folk" as opposed to "our folk".

[TheKentuckian]

146. It was identified in my post, if you are prone to using guilt, threats, and/or fear

to push Democrats to stay in line the you are the folks I was referring to.

If you spend much time arguing lesser of two evils or not as bad, you might be the folk I had in mind.

[POAS]

151. So what of "folk" who do

neither? Where would you put folk who choose to work for change without either fear of the other or demonizing those of differing opinion. Do they have a place in your "you folk / us folk" equation.

[TheKentuckian]

162. If the glass slipper doesn't fit then maybe your name ain't Cinderella.

If you weren't being addressed then what's the question? Call yourself what you will, I had no label to offer you.

Sounds like that slipper might have went right on though or you'd not have so many questions about what the shoe fitting actually entails.

For the record, I don't demonize either but observing the devil's horns doesn't mean you precipitated his fall. The demon's are what they are and pretending otherwise won't change their nature.

[POAS]

178. Are you averse to answering questions

about your opinions?

[TheKentuckian]

189. I answered you. You asked what my label/name/word for a group of people

was and were advised that I had no name for the group as described and made no comment on such folk unless they feel they resemble my remarks. At that point, you have my name for you and pretty clearly my opinion.

What is it you wish to know and I will be precise as I can but that is no guarantee of liking or finding satisfaction in my response.

[treestar]

207. There is plenty of use of guilt, threats or fear

from "your" side - threats to leave the party, to punish it by having Republicans win, guilt over the individual circumstances of people. Gimme a break.

Just like Republicans do, they project their own behavior onto the "opposition."

[NJmaverick]

176. By "you folks" you must be talking about the liberal Dems

that support the party and the President and are working for progress while making sure the GOP doesn't have an opportunity for a power grab.

[TheKentuckian]

203. Maybe liberal maybe not but I wasn't too in knots about hacky right wingers at all

I figure they will be pragmatic and sensible and follow the left to keep the pukes out of power as always.

:sarcasm:

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

212. If "you folks" would spend half the energy you waste blaming Obama

you'd have much more time to spend electing progressive Democrats to Congress. You know, so Obama can actually pass the agenda you want. That might be swell.

[TheKentuckian]

218. Yep, if we can overcome the party machine, Obama, and the Clintons

we can elect people to put a gun to their heads to do what we is required. Good strategy!

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

255. Ah, the pathetic "woe is me" strategy.

Do you have any idea how pitiful you are?

[TheKentuckian]

263. Acknowledging conditions as they exist is crucial to any effort

I could give a fuck how you see me, Nicholas. I don't hold you in very high esteem.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

267. Oh, so conditions are relevant to you, but not to Obama.

I see how it goes.

[nightrain]

27. Fear tactics. If Obama wants my vote again, he will have to earn it.

So far, I haven't seen enough positive actions for me to vote for him.

[HughMoran]

30. I'm outraged.

[nightrain]

32. no, somehow I doubt that you are outraged.

[HughMoran]

43. Perhaps because I'm able to weigh issues based on priorites and not flip out in the process

n/t

[nightrain]

118. massive projection. In the future I will ignore you completely. If the

purpose of DU is to engage in conversation, your kind of discourse completely fails. I suppose that is the purpose of your incessant attacks, baiting, and sarcasm.

However, I don't engage with people in that way. You'd catch more flies with honey than the bitter, angry, attacking mode.

Be more respectful and maybe you'll be treated differently.

"Winning"? No, Hugh, it's more like bullying. Pathetic.

[DatManFromNawlins]

186. weigh issues != vote party line regardless of results

[HughMoran]

198. Show me one issue/race where a/the Republican is better than the Democrat

Just one. Oh, and if you think voting for the Republican is an option, then I would like to know this.

Also, point to a third party candidate running against the Democrat where the race is close enough to matter where voting for the 3rd party candidate is NOT in essence a vote for the Republicans and all they stand for.

[Pirate Smile]

33. I'm always surprised at how quickly people forget the Bush years & years of a Republican-controlled

Congress. "Hey, it can't be any worse", "They all do the same thing" - I mean really, it wasn't exactly a long time ago. People have the memories of gnats.

[nightrain]

35. and I'm surprised at how quickly people forget what Obama stood

for as a candidate, and how quickly he has reneged on so much.

Let the cards fall where they will.

He has not earned my vote.

[HughMoran]

41. You know that's not true

How can you say something you know not to be true?

Unless you wish to enumerate a few issues among hundreds as I've seen others do.

It's disingenuous and I'm really sick of it.

[nightrain]

49. Hugh, you're not making sense and I will not engage with you.

[HughMoran]

51. Good, I won the argument - you're complaining about one or two issues

And you've let your outrage dominate your thinking process.

:headbang:

[nightrain]

54. you won nothing.

[HughMoran]

56. I thought you gave up

At least do that correctly.

[Tarheel_Dem]

73. You're killin' me Hugh.....

:rofl:

[nightrain]

78. yeah, he baits, lays a trap and attacks. Pretty immature.

[Tarheel_Dem]

82. What does that say about you? You fell right into his "trap". Who's immature again?

:rofl:

[nightrain]

84. more immaturity.

[Tarheel_Dem]

85. Insults from the guy who fell into a "trap"? I'll consider the source.

:rofl:

[stevenleser]

91. You can easily research to find out that you are wrong. All of the websites that track his promises

show an overwhelming ratio of kept promises to broken ones. But you keep trying to push that. Maybe you will find people ignorant enough to believe you.

[Hekate]

110. PolitiFact's Obameter lists 500 promises: 19 broken, 119 kept, 245 in the works...

Obviously that's unforgivable -- 19 promises out of 500 broken--that's nearly 4%.

Half are listed as "in the works" meaning not dropped, not forgotten, not broken.

http://www.politifact.com /

Tracking Obama’s promises
119 Promise Kept
37 Compromise
19 Promise Broken
82 Stalled
245 In the Works
3 Not yet rated

Hekate

[NJmaverick]

184. Now that's a powerful factual rebuttal.

[impik]

185. He'll live without your vote. You'll live with a wingnut president and congress. Pretty good deal

[treestar]

208. When you buy a consumer item, you can buy the least popular item

and still have the use of the item. You give them the money, they give you the item. But a vote? You give your vote to Obama, and he does what you want on everything. Doesn't work for the other 50 million plus who gave their vote.

A vote does not buy anything for the individual. What a stupid meme. There's no politician who can possibly make this "trade." What do you expect local politicians to do in return for your vote? Have they all earned it? From the mayor to the sheriff to the governor to the state senator or the dogcatcher?

Just insane.

[PFunk]

37. How about if Obama and the dems actually start acting like dems (and not like DINO's)

And stop crapping on their base to appease those DINO's. That itself (instead of fear tactics like the one above) will do wonders to keep Obama from being impeached in 2010. Period.

[HughMoran]

45. Just gimme the Funk

[Pirate Smile]

48. The unrec'ers are making progress in getting this close to falling off the Greatest Page.

If they manage to do that, that really says something about the state of DU right now - of course, it is also the weekend when the disgruntled and cynical rule the day (and night).

[nightrain]

52. look in the mirror for that.

[HughMoran]

53. It's very telling

& I don't think this sort of "attack the pro-Democrat message" is good for this site or Democrats. But, it's not my site so ...

[Pirate Smile]

64. I guess we are supposed to rally around the "let the Republicans take back control, that'll show'em"

message.

Eighteen months in and people are again acting like it doesn't matter who controls Congress or the White House. It is truly amazing. I get flashbacks of the 2000 campaign - oh, Gore is no better then Bush, it doesn't matter who wins; I mean, really, what could go wrong? Unbelievable.

[opihimoimoi]

59. KnR...vote Blue...keep the mission True

[Birthmark]

60. My vote is not predicated on what Republicans do...

...or might do, or hope to do.

My vote will be based on what Democrats have actually *done.* Appeal to fear doesn't move me in the least.

[emilyg]

104. +10

[Radical Activist]

66. I'll only support Democrats who support Obama's progressive agenda.

We've seen every progressive proposal made by Obama stalled, watered down, or defeated. We have to admit that we may be better off letting Democrats like Blanche Lincoln lose. At least then there will be a chance of defeating the Republican with a real Democrat in the next election.

Having a Democratic majority isn't enough. We need a progressive majority.

[Exilednight]

93. Exactly, but Obama does need to do more. Most of these Democrats rode his coat tails ............

to Washington, and if he used his power like he should, he would constantly remind them of that fact. It's a pretty simple strategy, vote for my agenda or I find someone who will. Leave the conserva-dems out in the cold and see how long they last in office.

[Radical Activist]

95. Nearly all Senators were in office before Obama became President.

You can count the newly elected Democratic Senators on one hand. Not many House Democrats are new either. Most of them don't believe they owe their election to Obama. Expecting Obama to control them that way is unrealistic.

[davidpdx]

97. Well put, Republicans are going to do the same thing they did to Clinton

Open ended investigations, hearings, wild accusations, etc. Anyone who wants a good book on some of the background stuff that happened read "Blinded by the Right" by David Brock. I am just floored how many WILD allegations that were made about Clinton. It is as if they spewed out the rumors like vomit to see what would stick to him.

I have it on PDF and am willing to share if anyone wants to PM me.

[Hekate]

111. Keep it handy, a lot of posters in this thread have amnesia, poor things. nt

[davidpdx]

115. Well as I said, I'll "loan it" to anyone who wants it

It's an eye opener as far as the shit that went on in the 90's. The next book I read is going to be a very non-serious book more for relaxation. Reading the books on the computer is too hard on my eyes.

[Goodnight]

100. Vote for our guy, because at least he sucks a LITTLE bit less than their guy!

How inspiring and changealicious. Makes me practically giddy to help GOTV!

[Dawgs]

138. The same thing was said about Gore over Bush.

Would you feel the same way if McCain had won and we were in a third war against Iran?

I doubt it.

[DCBob]

109. I think there are quite a few misguided angry progressives who want Obama impeached...

I guess they think that will teach him for not being liberal enough. Idiots.

[Bobbie Jo]

125. +1000

+ 1 huge WTF ?

[TBF]

129. You're wrong. I am angry but could care less about impeachment -

what I'd like to see is people in the streets putting pressure on our elected officials. It is the only thing that has ever influenced real change in this country. Without movements we are subject to the whims of the corporations.

[DCBob]

131. I agree with you.. we do need more protests and activism to show how the people feel..

about the issues, but that's different from bashing the POTUS and blaming him for the ills in this country. I am not saying you are doing it but many on the hard left are.

[Dawgs]

140. Why? Do you honestly think it will make a difference to Ben Nelson or Blanche Lincoln if...

progressives put pressure on them?

There is zero proof that these people will ever change.

[TBF]

161. I realize Obama is in a difficult position and I wouldn't want his job -

But I do believe we should criticize the policies we disagree with - like the commission that's working on gutting our social security. That kind of stuff will require Americans to act. If we don't say anything, if we don't march, then Congress will think no one is aware or cares. It was the same with civil rights.

[Dawgs]

139. Bullshit. The Senate is broken.

Three or four more progressive Dems in the Senate and we would have a public option, a much stronger financial reform bill, and a passed energy bill.

Blaming it on pressure of elected officials puts the blame on all politicians, when 95% of Democrats have shown to vote for strong progressive positions.

[TBF]

165. LOL - there is a democratic president and a majority in both houses.

And you tell me the problem is a broken Senate?

[Dawgs]

171. Okay, so how does a democratic president and a majority(not 60) in the Senate get anything passed?

Especially when 2-3 democratic senators vote with the Republicans?

Obama is not king, and the broken rules of the Senate don't allow for passage of anything that doesn't clear a super majority.

[TBF]

175. I believe that is where public pressure comes in. Would those 2-3 bluedogs

vote with the repubs if there were more pressure from protestors?

I hear what you're saying about procedure, and can't argue with that. It's either compromise or nothing to get some of those votes. But if we can influence votes by pushing from the street maybe we can get that super majority without giving away the farm.

[Dragonfli]

235. Bush had more? I remember shit passing with 51 votes until '08

The Republicans are not smarter than Dems(or are they?) so I think the corporate fix is in.

[Dragonfli]

240. And the Corps are winning thanks to vichy bipartisanship

that doesn't even get votes for the gifts to the wealthy.
Why compromise with the devil when he still won't vote yes, unless you like devilish policy?

[shotten99]

112. Amen

[JoePhilly]

122. "this incarnation of the GOP can NOT be allowed to govern" (+1000)

[Bobbie Jo]

192. + infinity.

[Tailormyst]

126. OR Obama could begin to act like a Liberal Democrat

I would love to have someone to believe in again in 2012 and to go door to door for or make calls for. As it stands, he might get my vote in 2012 but he certainly won't get any volunteering or money from me.

[Robb]

130. K&R

...Clicking on this thread must've been quite a disappointment for some. :D

[Pirate Smile]

177. LOL. You never know what you're going to get when you click on some thread titles.

;)

[great white snark]

144. A good morning kick

Get more liberals elected, keep the house & senate...surely this is a common goal we all share.

[Beacool]

145. How would losing either house (which I doubt will happen) be an impeachment on Obama?

It would send a message that voters are dissatisfied with the incumbents, but Obama will still remain president until at least January 20, 2013.

:shrug:

[Tarheel_Dem]

149. Wow! Do you know what impeachment means? Remember Bill Clinton?

He was impeached. Impeachment doesn't necessarily mean removal from office. It does, however, make it impossible to get anything else done while they root around trying to dig up Obama's "Monica Lewinsky".

[Beacool]

166. I know perfectly well what impeachment means.

And the possibility of the Democrats losing the House (the senate is too secure) is not an impeachment on Obama. Although, it will definitely affect his agenda.

;-)

[Tarheel_Dem]

204. "is not an impeachment on Obama". WTF does that mean?

Bill Clinton was impeached in the House. He wasn't removed from office because there wasn't enough support in the Senate. He was, however, IMPEACHED! And if the House changes hands again, we could very well see a repeat, which I know puts roses in your cheeks.;-)

[Beacool]

213. What grounds would Republicans have to initiate impeachment proceedings?

If the Republicans manage to win a majority in the House, what could they possibly impeach Obama on?

:shrug:

[Tarheel_Dem]

215. You'll have to consult Darrell Issa. He's the one who promises to do so. (nt)

[DatManFromNawlins]

187. That's nice

The difference is that Bill Clinton committed a crime while in office. They couldn't have done it otherwise.

[WI_DEM]

153. there are many on DU who would love a GOP congress to teach that Obama a lesson!

Idiots.

[HughMoran]

154. I think the 31 unrecs say an awful lot about an agenda

This post simply states an unalterable truth from a KOS diary - don't vote for Democrats and the Republicans win. On the Republican agenda is impeaching Obama - this is not in dispute. Excuse me for thinking that those who would unrec such a message are not interested in the future of the Democratic Party.

[Name removed]

157. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[berni_mccoy]

167. Politics is not a reality for idealists and ideally they feel a need to "Teach Obama and Democrats"

a lesson.

[TBF]

173. Leftists could care less about the personalities -

you are absolutely wrong in your assessment that it's a personal thing against Obama. I worked with the campaign here in Texas, would love to see him faring better in Washington. He's probably doing about as best as can be expected given the system we're working with. That's about all I can say without breaking the new rules.

[NorthCarolina]

168. I'll vote for Traditional Democrats in a heartbeat. DLC New Dems and GOP'ers

will NOT be getting a vote from me.

[demhistorian]

195. what is a "traditional" Democrat?

[NorthCarolina]

200. Well,

if you have to ask, a Traditional Democrat to me would be a Social Liberal, pro-Union, an advocate of the middle class and poor, concerned about the environment, an Staunch Advocate of Social Equality and Justice even when it comes to 'The Gays'. In a nutshell, I guess to me a Traditional Democrat would be basically everything that a DLC New Dem is not. Current examples of a Traditional Democratic candidate, to me, would be Congressmen Grayson, Weiner, Waxman, Maxine Waters, Kucinich, or Senators Sanders and Feingold. If they are members in good standing of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, they would be more likely to be replective of Traditional Democratic principles, to me, than not. Those not meeting my personal definition of a "traditional Democrat" would be in the vein of a Senator Ben Nelson, or a Sen. Blanche Lincoln, or Lieberman, or a Rahm Emmanuel, or a Chris Dodd, or a Max Baucus...etc, etc. You could see a convenient list of all those I would not consider to be Traditional Democrats if the DLC made their membership roster publicly available. Unfortunately they do not.

[demhistorian]

202. ok, now I know what a "traditional Democrat" is to you personally

and good luck to you in finding those to vote for. Historically speaking, though, what you deem a "traditional Democrat" isn't real traditional.

[SoxFan]

217. The Kucinich Kids would have driven JFK and Truman out of the party

"HAWKS! REPUBLICRATS! DINOS! WARMONGERS!"

[demhistorian]

231. Democrats were less accomodating to the left then. It would have been vice versa

[Name removed]

174. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[BzaDem]

180. Truth hurts. n/t

[dccrossman]

190. Fear is a lousy driver

Hate it when Repugs do it, hate it when Dems do it.

Though I will still vote. I'm in Georgia, but I'm hoping for a Dem comeback on the anti-incumbent movement.

Gotta say though that the threat of damage to Obama doesn't really bother me at all. Frankly, a Repub-controlled Congress for 2 years, with Obama hopefully vetoing anything stupid, would likely result in larger Dem gains in 2012 and probably a wider swing back to the left. 2011 would suck, but nothing will happen in 2012, regardless.

I hope that the close calls for Lincoln and others in the primary will at least wake up establishment Dems to the fact that around half of their core constituency doesn't approve.

[HughMoran]

221. So let the Republicans win big this fall, so we can do nothing for 2 years just for 2012 gains?

That's some of the worst logic I've ever seen. It's the logic of a loser IMO (not you specifically).

Only 20% of liberal Democrats don't approve of the President, so you need to be honest when you make claims like that - your credibility goes in the hopper when you say untrue things.

[Name removed]

223. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[glinda]

197. You think it was bad with Bush.... JUST wait if Rethugs gain power. You are not

dealing with rational righties here. This is a team that will bring the world down through environmental deregulation, greed and providing the means for citizens to take the laws into their own hands by killings.

[mistertrickster]

234. Riddle me this, if the GOP is "insane," what is Obama for wanting to

work with them?

If the radical right is so dangerous that we must vote for more compromising, why is our side compromising?

[LatteLibertine]

258. Depressing voter turn out

is a tried and true technique for getting the other guy elected. This is why I keep warning fellow Democrats about undermining party morale. Working towards reforms you want is fine and that may be done in a positive fashion.

[Tesha]

264. Maybe Obama should have investigated the former Bush Administration while he had the chance.

Instead, he decided to "play nice".

Hint: Republicans *NEVER* play nice, not even in reciprocation.

Fool.

Tesha

[jmowreader]

265. Isn't it time for Issa to go back and invent a new car alarm or something?