Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

"How are we going to get 60 solid liberal votes in the Senate?"

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 10:45 AM
Original message
"How are we going to get 60 solid liberal votes in the Senate?"
From a diary at Daily Kos

<...>

The current US Senate rules allow for 41 Senators to filibuster any legislation and the Republicans have 41 votes and have abused the filibuster again and again.

And, of course, we have the "blue dogs" who also obstruct. Yes, we need to replace them. So where do our Democrats in the Senate come from?

Here are 17 of them, listed by state and the percentage (rough calculations) of the vote that Obama got in that state in 2008:

Red States:

Montana: Baucus, Tester (49 percent)
Alaska: Begich (39 percent)
North Dakota: Conrad, Dorgan (45 percent)
West Virginia: Goodwin, Rockefeller (43 percent)
South Dakota: Johnson (45 percent)
Louisiana: Landrieu (40 percent)
Arkansas: Pryor, Lincoln (40 percent)
Missouri: McCaskill (barely McCain)
12 Senators
------------------------
Nebraska: Nelson (42 percent, but 1 CD)
----------------------
Blue for the first time in many years:

Indiana: Bayh (less than 51 percent)
Virginia: Warner, Webb (53 percent)
North Carolina: Hagan (less than 51 percent)

17 Senators: 13 from red states, 4 from "barely blue for the first time in decades" states.

So, just how are we going to replace those 13 "red state" (soon to be less) Democrats with liberals?

How are we going to replace the "newly and barely" blue states senators (4) with liberals who think like us?

How are we going to get 60 solid liberal votes in the Senate?

<...>


Now, that's math. Lieberman is missing from the list, and he's up for re-election in 2012.

Of course, it would be great if filibuster reform had enough support, but even Senator Feingold has been opposed to eliminating the filibuster.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
lillypaddle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 10:48 AM
Response to Original message
1. K&R brings recs to zero
shameful.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NJmaverick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 10:48 AM
Response to Original message
2. K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SunsetDreams Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 10:50 AM
Response to Original message
3. K&R that countered an unrec?
Wonder why...

This is what I have been saying, I don't know how we get Progressives/Liberals IN over those Conservative Dems in red states. It would be nice if we could, but the political reality(yes I said reality, big deal) in those states will not allow that to happen.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CakeGrrl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 11:20 AM
Response to Reply #3
25. Because it's an inconvenient truth about how legislation gets passed
I suppose if one enjoys blaming everything on Obama's lack of leadership, one would rather not think about why we have the House and the Senate.

:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SunsetDreams Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 11:44 AM
Response to Reply #25
59. I have to hand it to him,
He is indeed talented. He writes, passes and signs all legislation apparently.
There is no House and Senate.

:sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alcibiades_mystery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 10:53 AM
Response to Original message
4. A Note on Dean's "Brilliant" 50 State Strategy, while we're on this
I've seen a number of posts lately praising Dean for his 50 state strategy. I agree - the Dems were wrapped up in negativity when they thought they'd simply never win some districts. But then I see the same posters turn around and scream bloody murder about the "Blue Dogs" and the Conservo-dems, and all the pandering the Administration is supposedly doing for them.

Um, the 50 State Strategy WAS the Election of Blue Dogs.

What the fuck do y'all think it was?

You can't say "Dean was a genius" on the one hand and "Why do we have all these DINO's?" on the other: they're two sides of the same fucking coin. (I don't mean "you" ProSense.

Sorry for the thread disruption, but truly, enough is fucking enough.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClassWarrior Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 10:56 AM
Response to Reply #4
8. Yes you CAN say that.
Edited on Wed Aug-11-10 10:59 AM by ClassWarrior
"My colleague, Glenn W. Smith, has pointed to the DLC strategy of getting as many "swing voters" as possible and the minimum number of base voters needed to win. That is why the DLC and Rahm Emanuel argued against Howard Dean's 50-state strategy and for a swing-state alone strategy.

The DLC has concentrated on policy wonkishness (see their 100 new policy ideas on their website) rather than values. Their concentration on laundry lists of policies rather than vision, values, and passion has not helped the Democrats electorally...

"But worst of all, the DLC has been cowed by the conservatives. They have drunk the conservative Kool-Aid. As Harold Ford intimated in his debate with Markos Moulitsas: To win you have be a hawk on foreign policy, a social conservative on abortion and gay marriage, and not raise taxes. Nonsense.

Even worse, Ford is suggesting that those in the party who don't hold those views say that they do. There's a name for someone who goes against his principles to pander for votes. It's not a nice name..."


"No Center, No Centrists" by George Lakoff
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/george-lakoff/no-center-n...

NGU.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cosmocat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 11:05 AM
Original message
Says the guy ...
who LOST his last election ...

I can appreciate Ford as a guy who HAD to be a "blue dog" in a tough tennessee district, but he is a an absolute festering sore as a national spokesman ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClassWarrior Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 11:07 AM
Response to Original message
14. Read the article. It talks about how Harold's blue-dogginess lost him the election.
NGU.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alcibiades_mystery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 11:13 AM
Response to Reply #8
18. Well which is it? Is it Dean or the DLC Responsible for Current Dem Majorities?
If the DLC is responsible for the majorities (however rotten they are), then we can hardly praise Dean for having created them!

If Dean is responsible for the majorities, then we can hardly absolve him from their conservative character.

You can't have it both ways. It seems like you want to say, "Dean is awesome for creating the Dem majorities, but the DLC is awful for creating conservo-dem majorities." It's completely ludicrous.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClassWarrior Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 11:21 AM
Response to Reply #18
27. Ahhh, so you want to blame Dean for creating the 50-year RW media distortion strategy?
After all, you did say, "If Dean is responsible for the majorities, then we can hardly absolve him from their conservative character. "

(Of course, my assertion here is about as honest as yours.)

NGU.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alcibiades_mystery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 11:26 AM
Response to Reply #27
31. I don't want to blame Dean for anything, actually
I think it's ridiculous to praise Dean for the majorities while bemoaning the conservative character of those very majorities.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClassWarrior Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 11:31 AM
Response to Reply #31
37. I'm bemoaning the conservative character of elected leaders, not the minority they represent...
...in the Dem caucus.

NGU.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alcibiades_mystery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 11:33 AM
Response to Reply #37
41. Oh, as am I
Nothing I dislike more than a blue dog. At the same time, I don't have any illusions about how they got there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
treestar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 11:34 AM
Response to Reply #18
42. True, Dean did not do "good enough" per these same people either
They just want to attack the POTUS without dealing with Congress. They'd be equally ungrateful to a President Dean.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BrklynLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 11:36 AM
Response to Reply #8
46. Wow!! That is from 2007!! Lakoff is a prescient genius.
I am going to make a separate post for that article. It may be old, but it sure is not out-dated.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClassWarrior Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 11:04 AM
Response to Reply #4
11. So you can't say, "Edison was a genius" and "Why does that first phonograph sound so crappy?"
After all, "they're two sides of the same fucking coin."

:eyes:

NGU.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alcibiades_mystery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 11:08 AM
Response to Reply #11
15. So you'd admit that Dean's first run at the 50 state strategy
appears to have pretty crappy results?

Good analogy.

Can it improve? Of course. But the current composition of the Congress can't be separated from the architect of those campaigns. Edison was a genius who gave us a pretty crappy first phonograph. Thank goodness it got better. Dean is the genius who gave us the pretty crappy Dem congress. Let's hope it gets better, but let's not pretend that Dean's strategy isn't directly responsible for this crap.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClassWarrior Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 11:18 AM
Response to Reply #15
24. Yes, I admit it was a breakthrough...
...and like most breakthroughs, it will improve quickly if it's developed.

And to say that Edison's invention is directly responsible for bad audio is as laughable as it is dishonest.

NGU.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alcibiades_mystery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 11:29 AM
Response to Reply #24
34. Well
Since I didn't say that Edison was responsible for bad audio in general, I don't even know what you're talking about. However, the invention did produce bad audio on the first specific try, now didn't it?

The point here is simple: Dean's 50 state strategy is responsible, in part, for the conservative nature of the Dem majorities. That's neither good nor bad, but the two can't be separated.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClassWarrior Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 11:32 AM
Response to Reply #34
40. Wrong. The two can't be joined. Unless one has an agenda to trash Dean.
NGU.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alcibiades_mystery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 11:35 AM
Response to Reply #40
43. I think we'll go over and over this
I'm happy enough to say that they can't be joined, but then you can't say that Dean was some genius who created our majorities. He either created THIS SPECIFIC majority, with it's maddening conservative section, or none at all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
treestar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 11:38 AM
Response to Reply #15
50. And be glad there is something to start with
Instead of what we'd have without that - Republicans. You see tons of DU posts trashing the Blue Dogs and scoffing at the idea they are an improvement on Republicans. They're going to primary a Blue Dog from a Red State. As if a red state would elect a progressive Senator!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
quaker bill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 10:37 PM
Response to Reply #15
125. You are missing the point of your analogy
it may not be a great phonograph, but it is a phonograph, starting from zero, an impressive leap forward. Winning elections at all was necessary to make the party relevant again in a great many places. It is not enough, but from where we came from, it is a good start.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alcibiades_mystery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 06:37 AM
Response to Reply #125
133. Not really
I think Dean can be given credit - a lot of credit, in fact - for creating Democratic majorities in a difficult climate. I also think that the mode of such creation is in part responsible for the predicament we're in with an illusory large majority (in fact, we have a slim progressive majority, if any at all, as the OP demonstrates nicely). And this is true regardless of DLC involvement, though the DLC is clearly to blame in great measure for the composition of the current Congress (in terms of both praise and blame). If it's the fact that we have a slim progressive majority, or one insufficient to pass actual legislation, it hardly seems proper to praise Dean for creating a large majority. That doesn't mean he receives no credit, of course.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
quaker bill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-13-10 06:23 AM
Response to Reply #133
161. The actual problem
is that we are assessing the status of a project that is only roughly finished to the first phase. Under any reasonable scenario, the fifty state strategy would not have produced this many seats in congress this soon. The wave of revulsion over 8 years of Bush took the project to places it was not ready to go this early. The birth of a dem majority this large,was, simply put, premature.

The point of the project was to make the Democratic party relevant again in many places where it had not been relevant for almost 50 years. It was to rebuild the party organization and run locally credible candidates to facilitate reconstruction of a base and to re-engage in dialog with that base toward eventually building a true governing majority among the people. The reaction to Bush produced an abberation, specifically victories in strong republican leaning districts. The intent of the project was to change these districts to dem leaning over time by winnng some races and seriously competing, while perhaps losing others. Instead, we won almost anywhere we put up a serious effort. It was not expected to happen this fast.

So now we have a bunch of representatives in congress in republican +5 to republican +10 districts, instead of a bunch of near losers who ran the first credible opposition campaign in decades in these districts. These folks are now sitting in districts where under normal circumstances they would have placed a close second, and they are trying to keep their jobs. This is not all that bad, but it is not the size of a win the media and some activists like to presume. In some ways it would have been better if the republican had barely won in their first very tight contest in at least some of these races, as they would be more likely to seek a path toward the middle to keep their jobs.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alcibiades_mystery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-13-10 06:36 AM
Response to Reply #161
162. I agree with everything you say here
You are exactly right on all counts.

:thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
depakid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 11:12 AM
Response to Reply #4
17. Wrong. Again As usual
Edited on Wed Aug-11-10 11:14 AM by depakid
Dean's strategy was to go to red states and show them what progressive policies would do- as he said, to paraphrase, the guys with confederate fags on their trucks want and need secure, well paying jobs, decent healthcare and good schools for their kids.

People like you pervert and misrepresent that strategy- equating it with Rahm's dysfunctional Blue dogs. For what purpose or emotional need, who can say?

</threadjack>

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Guy Whitey Corngood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 11:17 AM
Response to Reply #17
23. The DFA (Dean) supported the more liberal candidates in the primaries. If I recall Dean was constant
at odds with the DCCC and the DSCC. As in the case of Tammy Duckworth here in IL.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alcibiades_mystery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 11:32 AM
Response to Reply #23
39. That's well and good
But then how is it possible to credit him with the current majorities if it was -to your mind - the DLC who pushed through the actual winning candidates?

My point here is simple: if you credit him with the majorities, you have to credit him with their particular character. If you blame the DLC for the current composition of the Congress, that's fine, too, but you can't then praise Dean for making it happen.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Guy Whitey Corngood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 11:47 AM
Response to Reply #39
63. I'm not here praising anyone. Sure the eventual nominees had to be supported in
the general. I think overall the party was shortsighted. Sure they needed to win but they could have also courted more populist candidates instead of health insurance (and other corps.) lackeys. The idea of the so called 50 state strategy was right on but the execution lacked a broader vision (than just winning and get someone in there). Dean was part of this but Emmanuel and Schummer aren't exactly known for their fiery populism. Which we could use right now to refocus that anger on to Wall St and the pukes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alcibiades_mystery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 11:54 AM
Response to Reply #63
68. I have no doubt that we're seeing a combination of the Dean and DLC strategies
Neither is completely responsible for the Dem majorities, nor is either completely innocent of the conservative problem in those majorities. That's the point.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 11:23 AM
Response to Reply #17
28. No that's a complete myth
DEAN: The Pro-Life candidates that I was interested in supporting were people who agreed with the Democratic platform in almost every other respect. Therefore, it's very clear, that even a Pro-Life Democrat who may disagree with us on a fundamental issue is a huge improvement over the person who was there before. So, are there some Democrats I would not support? Yesand No I'm not gonna tell you who they are. But there are not many. Most of the Democrats who are Pro-Lifeare very very good on a lot of other issues and I don't want to exclude people like that from out party.

link



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClassWarrior Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 11:29 AM
Response to Reply #28
33. "Agreed with the Democratic PLATFORM." Read that platform sometime PS, then tell me how much YOU...
...and your beloved ConservaDems agree with it.

NGU.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 11:37 AM
Response to Reply #33
48. "The Pro-Life candidates that I was interested in supporting
were people who agreed with the Democratic platform"

The Democrat Platform is Pro-Life?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClassWarrior Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 11:47 AM
Response to Reply #48
62. It's YOUR quote. Why are you asking ME to defend it?? ROFL...
Edited on Wed Aug-11-10 11:47 AM by ClassWarrior
FWIW, the quote is "...were people who agreed with the Democratic platform in almost every other respect."

:rofl:

NGU.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 12:11 PM
Response to Reply #62
78. It's Dean's quote, and
Edited on Wed Aug-11-10 12:11 PM by ProSense
you're the one defending it.

"FWIW, the quote is "...were people who agreed with the Democratic platform in almost every other respect."

Right, which is the entire point, he was not pushing for progressive, he was trying to win with candidates who agreed with most of the Democratic platform, even if they were pro-life.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Proud Liberal Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 11:17 AM
Response to Reply #4
22. The 50 State Strategy is/was a GREAT way to obtain a majority in Congress
Edited on Wed Aug-11-10 11:22 AM by Proud Liberal Dem
Unfortunately, like others have pointed out, a majority of Democratic Representatives and Senators does NOT=a majority of LIBERAL Democratic Representatives and Senators. Until some of those "redder" areas liberalize and join the 21st Century, we're either going to have deal with having a Democratic majority in Congress that includes the "Blue Dogs" or settle for a narrower Democratic majority (and more "tea party" Republicans) in Congress (which, given their current solid obstructionism, isn't going to help the situation either). THAT is political reality as I see it. The left's anger with President Obama might be a little more reasonable/justified if we actually had a majority of liberal/progressive Democrats in Congress but we actually have a more "motley" mix of people in our party that we have to deal with in order to get things done and, at least for me, it's more important that we get something done than waiting until "the perfect deal" is actually attainable. Does anybody have any other suggestions/solutions to this dilemma???? Maybe more activism/organization/voter education in "red" states, perhaps? :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mstinamotorcity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 07:39 AM
Response to Reply #22
134. Yes I think I might
Edited on Thu Aug-12-10 07:41 AM by mstinamotorcity
We need to first look at all the things we accomplished in a short amount of time and start acting as if we are proud of our accomplishments. A few suggestions. Like we are moving forward.The President can only sign into law what is in front of him. It is up to us to make sure he has our agenda to sign. To change the minds of people in the barely blue states, we must get them to look at what they have gained and point it out. It doesn't mean getting all up in their face with loud political rhetoric that causes an argument before a resolution.When you are talking to family members and non family members we can bring up facts in general conversation.When people talk about higher taxes,we must remind them that 95% of Americans paid the lowest amount of taxes and had bigger returns under this administration.Ask them if they paid a lower tax if they owed.Most people who end up owing the Government money do so consistently. And if their returns were bigger than previous years.And if their returns were bigger and they are still complaining about what our President and his administration then politely let them know that they won't have to worry,if we return to the old ways that extra money will go away. When you talk dollars and cents there are still people who can do math.Tell your grown children who can ride on your insurance until 26 years of age to go get their physical thanks to the Patient Prevention and Affordable Care Act.Our friends who may qualify for loan modifications,we make sure they get the information. Report lending companies who do not participate to your senators and congressmen to see if they can ease the situation with a friendly phone call.And hold our local leaders accountable on stimulus funds being spent in our community. Make sure you press them to hire local companies and hire inside the community.E-mail your local news station investigative reporters and ask them to check it out. After all the American Recovery Act Projects should be in just about every community by now.And the more people that take advantage of the programs and get help turns into votes.Because after all though some legislation may not have helped one individual we must remember that there are millions who are able to take advantage of new legislation.Be pro-active!!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Proud Liberal Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 10:15 PM
Response to Reply #134
160. Now THAT sounds like a rational constructive suggestion!
K & R! :thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 11:42 AM
Response to Reply #4
56. No the Blue Dogs were the product of
Rahm Emmanual...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alcibiades_mystery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 11:45 AM
Response to Reply #56
60. Fine...then the DLC created the majorities
And not Dean.

Good enough.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lillypaddle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 11:47 AM
Response to Reply #4
64. excellent point. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Arkana Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 11:51 AM
Response to Reply #4
66. Dean knew how to get Democrats elected--you tailor the Democrat
to the district/state/area.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alcibiades_mystery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 11:55 AM
Response to Reply #66
70. I agree...he knew what to do
Of course, the current composition of the Congress is a reflection of that tailoring.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Arkana Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 11:59 AM
Response to Reply #70
71. Unfortunately yes.
Dean was smart enough to know that Ted Kennedy is not going to get elected as the congressman from East Bumblescum, Alabama and such--so he found Democrats who could.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alcibiades_mystery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 12:05 PM
Response to Reply #71
75. Exactly
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
quiller4 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 11:00 AM
Response to Reply #71
152. and Democrats who can get elected in Alabama are likely to oppose
some of the priorities of those of us from more liberal areas of the country. We have a choice-permanent minority or embrace some conserva-Dems unless you can suggest a way to transform Georgia, Virginia, Indiana, Arkansas et alia public opinion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vaberella Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 09:54 AM
Response to Reply #66
143. But not all Democrats are the same and ultimately it's irrelevant about how to get Dems elected.
We get problems when, like the 17 listed above, aren't progressive or vote for progressive ideals. Deans initiative was effective but in the long run not worthwhile when we can't great things done. Yes, we get a lot done but if DU is an example---the Dems in the Senate are worthless and have helped create the dissatisfaction with the current Admin. Most think Obama can do anything and push anything he wants in order to get things done when his role is not even to make the laws or vote on them but to carry them out and enforce them. However, people choose to ignore the serious power the Senate has. And it's this power of the Senate that is really hurting liberal and progressive efforts. Not Obama. So getting Dems elected means nothing at all when they are ineffective in their role.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 01:26 PM
Response to Reply #4
96. Once again, this assertion is about as wrong as it gets.
I'll just repost my response to you from another thread:

If you remember (and you obviously don't), it was Rahm Emanuel heading the DCCC who backed the conservadem candidates -- many of whom ended up losing. Dean promoted and backed true progressives, many of whom won over DCCC primary opponents.

It was DEAN who brought us the 2006 progressive wins, with people like Jerry McNerney, Keith Ellison, John Hall, Carol Shea-Porter, John Yarmuth, and David Loebsack. it was RAHM who backed centrists like Tammy Duckworth, who lost her bid for Congress and conservadems like Steve Filson and Jim Leach who were sent packing in the primaries.


Good luck with your revisionist history. Unfortunately for you, there are those of us who actually worked on the 2006 congressional campaigns and most of us have functioning memories.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alcibiades_mystery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 01:33 PM
Response to Reply #96
98. So the Dem majority was NOT Dean's doing?
Can't have it both ways.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 01:42 PM
Response to Reply #98
99. You're seriously confused about this?
Dean backed progressives for Congress. The 50-state-strategy was not about running conservadems, it was about promoting *real* Democratic values and building a national infrastructure.

One more bit if info you're conveniently unaware of: If all of Rahm's conservadems had lost their races in 06, we still would have taken Congress with just Dean's progressive victories. And without Dean's progressive winners, we could NOT have taken back Congress.


It's not "having it both ways". It's running real Democrats and winning in previously solid red districts. Which part of that are you having trouble with?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 01:45 PM
Response to Reply #99
100. "Dean backed progressives for Congress." Dean backed Pro-Life
candidates:

DEAN: The Pro-Life candidates that I was interested in supporting were people who agreed with the Democratic platform in almost every other respect. Therefore, it's very clear, that even a Pro-Life Democrat who may disagree with us on a fundamental issue is a huge improvement over the person who was there before. So, are there some Democrats I would not support? Yesand No I'm not gonna tell you who they are. But there are not many. Most of the Democrats who are Pro-Lifeare very very good on a lot of other issues and I don't want to exclude people like that from out party.

link


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 01:51 PM
Response to Reply #100
101. Blue dogs and Pro-lifers are not the same thing
But you already knew that.

Nice try, though. :hi:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 02:24 PM
Response to Reply #101
103. Are progressives and pro-lifers the same thing? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 03:36 PM
Response to Reply #103
111. there are definatly some progressive pro lifers
Marcy Kaptur certainly is a progressive on just about every other issue aside from being pro life and not great on gay rights. Casey isn't as progressive as her but I would count him as well. These politicians are dying out as the catholic base which elected them gets more liberal on social issues but there is a very long tradition of pro life, progressive politicians in the industrial midwest.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JI7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 03:39 PM
Response to Reply #111
112. and many would not consider anti choice to be progressive
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 03:59 PM
Response to Reply #112
113. do the many hold the converse?
Edited on Wed Aug-11-10 04:00 PM by dsc
Alan Simpson is pro choice, Marcy Kaptur isn't. I know who I would rather have sitting on the Social Security Commission or for that matter as a legislator.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alcibiades_mystery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 02:36 PM
Response to Reply #99
106. I'm not confused at all
Edited on Wed Aug-11-10 02:43 PM by alcibiades_mystery
As I stated, I find it funny that people praise Dean for the majority, then decry the character of that very same majority, and YES, that is having it both ways.

And if Dean did in fact create a progressive majority sufficient to pass legislation without the blue dogs, then nobody should be complaining about the Blue Dogs, since they would then be irrelevant. If not, then it hardly seems admissible to praise the 50 state strategy to the ceiling.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 03:20 PM
Response to Reply #106
109. So you're intentionally misrepresenting history
As you're fond of saying, you can't have it both ways.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alcibiades_mystery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 04:29 PM
Response to Reply #109
114. I'm doing nothing of the sort
I'm commenting on current statements. I know your own involvement in the 2006 campaign is precious enough for you that you want to turn discussion that way, but it's not really what I'm talking about. Cheers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 04:33 PM
Response to Reply #114
115. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
JamesA1102 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 11:34 PM
Response to Reply #109
130. Sounds like you're the on trying to have it both ways.
You're pulling the same type of crap they pull on FOX. "Rahm is pure evil and responsible for all the blue dogs but Dean is pure good and responsible for winning back Congress." Anyone with half a brain knows that makes no sense.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alcibiades_mystery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 06:33 AM
Response to Reply #130
132. Well
That's not my point at all. I'm arguing precisely for more consistent - and tempered - views than that.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JamesA1102 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 09:45 AM
Response to Reply #132
140. Actually I'm agreeing with you. nt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 09:38 AM
Response to Reply #130
139. And anyone with a *whole* brain knows that's not what I'm saying.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JamesA1102 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 09:46 AM
Response to Reply #139
141. Please you're trying to have it both ways.
You want to demonize Rahm and glorify Dean.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 10:37 AM
Response to Reply #141
150. Oh, FFS. That's not what "having it both ways" means
Holy crap, do I really have to explain this to you??? "Having it both ways" only applies if the two "ways" are logically incompatible. Since it's not logically incompatible for Rahm to be a putz while Dean is a hero, the phrase doesn't apply.

Sometimes I weep for our educational system. :banghead:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JamesA1102 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 12:37 PM
Response to Reply #150
155. No having both ways is
putting all the blame for blue dog Dems on Rahm and none on Dean while praising Dean for taking back the Congress in '06 but not giving Rahm any of the credit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 02:03 PM
Response to Reply #155
157. Nope, still wrong.
OK... I'm gonna back slowly away from this conversation. :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JamesA1102 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 04:43 PM
Response to Reply #157
158. Yeah because you don't have a leg to stand on nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bornskeptic Donating Member (951 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 12:07 PM
Response to Reply #96
154. You're somewhat wrong yourself.
Jim Leach was a Republican-the last surviving moderate Republican in the House. He was beaten in the general election. I hope your functioning memory functions better in the future.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClassWarrior Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 10:53 AM
Response to Original message
5. By running Senate candidates who speak to ALL voters with strong, progressive values...
Edited on Wed Aug-11-10 10:57 AM by ClassWarrior
"You speak to biconceptuals the same way you speak to your base: you discuss progressive values, and if you are talking to folks with both progressive and conservative values, you mainly talk about the issues where they share progressive values. What that does is evoke and strengthen the progressive values already there in the minds of biconceptuals...

"That was the winning strategy of Sherrod Brown in Ohio. Brown is a thoroughgoing progressive who never moved one inch to the right. He talked about the issues where he agreed with his Ohio audiences -- and legitimately spoke for them.

Think about Barack Obama going to Rick Warren's megachurch and getting a standing ovation from evangelicals because he talked about the places where he agreed with them, he activated his values in them (values they already had), he came across as a man of principle, and he didn't get in their face about where he disagreed.

The losing strategy is to move to the right, to assume with Republicans that American values are mainly conservative and that the Democratic party has to move away from its base and adopt conservative values. When you do that, you help activate conservative values in people's brains (thus helping the other side), you offend your base (thus hurting yourself), and you give the impression that you are expressing no consistent set of values, which is true! Why should the American people trust somebody who does not have clear values, and who may be trying to deceive them about the values he and his party's base hold?..."


"No Center, No Centrists" by George Lakoff
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/george-lakoff/no-center-n...

NGU.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 11:02 AM
Response to Reply #5
10. That's true about Sherrod Brown, but
Edited on Wed Aug-11-10 11:03 AM by ProSense
Ohio is not South Dakota or Louisiana. That said, there needs to be more progressive candidates, but they need to be identified and supported at the grassroots level. The Party will typically go with the more well-known and established candidate, and that rarely equals a progressive. Remember Brown was already a member of the House, and got the Party's backing.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClassWarrior Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 11:05 AM
Response to Reply #10
13. Oh, that doesn't count because it contradicts you, huh?
:eyes:

NGU.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 11:09 AM
Response to Reply #13
16. Who said it doesn't count?
Edited on Wed Aug-11-10 11:10 AM by ProSense
Want that to be the strategy: find progressives in the House that will run for the Senate. Sestak is currently running (not claiming that he's progressive). It's not a bad strategy, but then a progressive needs to fill the seat vacated in the House.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClassWarrior Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 11:14 AM
Response to Reply #16
19. "That's true, BUUUTTT..."
To paraphrase Pee Wee Herman, seems like you always have a big "buttt."

NGU.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nicholas D Wolfwood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 11:21 AM
Response to Reply #13
26. Differentiating circumstances isn't your strong suit, eh? (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClassWarrior Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 11:25 AM
Response to Reply #26
29. Not when the poster's "circumstances" shift with each post, based on the poster's agenda.
If I need a flow chart and a slide rule to figure 'em out, nooo they're not my strong suit at all.

:rofl:

NGU.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nicholas D Wolfwood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 11:29 AM
Response to Reply #29
35. The circumstances shift in each state, in each district.
So sorry that you don't understand politics, but I would really think you should on a political board.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SunsetDreams Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 11:31 AM
Response to Reply #35
36. "The circumstances shift in each state, in each district" Indeed
Not sure what the big dustup is here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 11:35 AM
Response to Reply #36
44. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
SunsetDreams Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 11:40 AM
Response to Reply #36
51. I was agreeing with you
Edited on Wed Aug-11-10 11:41 AM by SunsetDreams
Since we know the circumstances do INDEED change between states, and districts.
I fail to see the "dustup" over someone using a BUT, when talking about ONE Senator Sherrod Brown.
It's rediculous.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClassWarrior Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 11:36 AM
Response to Reply #35
45. Resorting to insults. LOL... A sure sign someone knows s/he's lost the argument.
NGU.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 11:37 AM
Response to Reply #45
49. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
ClassWarrior Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 11:53 AM
Response to Reply #49
67. Thanks for that substance. You're really earning your credibility.
:rofl:

NGU.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Davis_X_Machina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 11:25 AM
Response to Reply #10
30. There are exactly eight progressives in LA.
There used to be nine, but one left after Katrina.

In SD there are thirteen but seven of them are on the res.

Not candidates. Progressives, period.

Look, vast swaths of this country are conservative to intensely conservative and are not going to produce a progressive candidate for dog-catcher in our lifetimes. Even SD's own George McGovern, the stereotypical liberal, is vehemently anti-union.

Coalitions. Coalitions. Coalitions.
Compromise. Compromise. Compromise.

There is no other way forward.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClassWarrior Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 11:41 AM
Response to Reply #30
53. If you define people by two-dimensional labels, so be it. However if you understand that people...
...hold complex value systems that govern their thoughts and opinions, then read this article and get a deeper understanding of the progressive/conservative nature of the political mind:

"No Center, No Centrists" by George Lakoff
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/george-lakoff/no-center-n...

NGU.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Davis_X_Machina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 11:42 AM
Response to Reply #53
55. The ballot has two choices. Lakoff forgets that. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClassWarrior Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 11:44 AM
Response to Reply #55
58. Very good. So what's your point?
NGU.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
killbotfactory Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 10:54 AM
Response to Original message
6. political realities?
(insert misguided outrage over something vaguely related to the topic at hand here)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Enrique Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 10:56 AM
Response to Original message
7. you don't. You win with less than 60 votes
you stand strong and make the GOP pay a price for filibustering so they don't do it. You make corporatist dems pay a price for being corporatists. You don't support corporatist dems when they get primary challenged. You make moderate republicans pay a price for voting with their extreme right wing party.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gkhouston Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 11:01 AM
Response to Reply #7
9. +1. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 11:05 AM
Response to Reply #7
12. "you stand strong and make the GOP pay a price for filibustering so they don't do it."
What price? Do you really believe a party that now includes people who say they're going to vote for legislation up to an hour before voting against it, believe or care that they're going to pay a price?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 11:15 AM
Response to Reply #12
21. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Enrique Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 11:41 AM
Response to Reply #12
52. ask Snowe and Collins why they caved on unemployment
if we just said the GOP will win every time because we don't have 60 votes, we would have lost that one too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 12:56 PM
Response to Reply #52
92. Do you think they voted for the bill
because it got stronger?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nicholas D Wolfwood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 11:28 AM
Response to Reply #7
32. What price can be forced?
I've asked this directly of you plenty of times.

On the filibuster: In real life, you cannot force a Jimmy Stewart filibuster. The only thing we can do is keep making quorum calls. During this time, NOTHING gets accomplished - which by the way, is exactly what the GOP wants. So tell me - what price is really extracted from what you're saying?

On "corporatists": Who else do you get to run from places like Louisiana or Nebraska that can win as a Democrat? And if you can't get a Democratic win from those kinds of states, how else do you achieve even 50 votes in the Senate?

On moderate Republicans: How do you get someone to pay a price when they're not up for election? There is not a single moderate Republican up for election this year.

There is no leverage to be had in any of the places you suggest.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
moksha Donating Member (345 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 11:43 AM
Response to Reply #7
57. That woould take leadership. Something Dems don't understand.
Or, conservatives are so entrenched in the party that they don't care.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BklnDem75 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 01:17 PM
Response to Reply #57
95. That's awesome
Seems you took a huge gulp of the RW 'leadership' swill. Got anything in the form of an answer?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vaberella Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 09:58 AM
Response to Reply #57
145. Tell me what price you're going to make Repubs pay?!
Can you tell us.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vaberella Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 09:56 AM
Response to Reply #7
144. HELLO!! Not unless you get enough jerks to filibuster and then yes you need 60.
Edited on Thu Aug-12-10 10:00 AM by vaberella
Filibuster has been used by the GOP and many of the Dems above have stood next to the GOP to filibuster fundamental bills. The rules of filibuster demands it----and we get NOTHING done. I'd rather have my government moving ahead on small things than to see it stalled for years---like Obama's staff. He still has people who cannot be voted into seats by the GOP. And you think it's realistic to make them pay the price. You don't even see the fuckin' media touching on what the GOP is doing to his Administration, instead they make him seem utterly ineffective. And you're playing right into it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Davis_X_Machina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 11:15 AM
Response to Original message
20. The OPs question answered: Never.
There are today three parties in the Senate, from which a governing coalition from time to time is cobbled.

There are:

1. the Democratic senators who are Democrats,
2. the Democratic senators who are Republicans
3. the Republican senators who are Republicans.

There used to be a 4. Republican Senators who are Democrats Javits, Brooke, Hatfield, Chaffee, Stafford; Snowe and Collins five years agobut theyre extinct.

Bush could count on 2's and 3's for passage of much of his agenda, though stuff like SS reform and immigration reform couldn't even pass then.

Assume an even more liberal Obama than the one you've got. What's he got? The #1's only mostly, most days.

Only a little more than one-third of the Senate actually improves their political prospects by standing with the president. The Republicans-who-are-Republicans certainly dont. Two or three Democrats-who-are-Democrats (Russ Feingold, e.g.) on any given day can decide that they dont, either.

Whats left isnt enough left to defeat a filibuster. There are barely enough Senators left to pass a bill.

The return of #4's is far more probable than an increase to thirty or 40 of #1's.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nicholas D Wolfwood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 11:31 AM
Response to Reply #20
38. +1
Though I'm not thrilled by the characterization of "Democrats who are Republicans", the general point you're making is correct.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nicholas D Wolfwood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 11:36 AM
Response to Original message
47. ...and this is why our education system needs improving.
Basic math skills seem to be failing even those that think themselves educated.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
moksha Donating Member (345 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 11:42 AM
Response to Original message
54. How many excuses can you give for ineffectiveness and lack of leadership.
Excuses are like assholes you know.

Results matter. Excuses are weak.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Arkana Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 11:55 AM
Response to Reply #54
69. What an insightful post. Thank you for your opinion.
You know what they say about opinions, don't you? They're a lot like excuses.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
moksha Donating Member (345 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 12:00 PM
Response to Reply #69
72. If you can't get the job done, make an excuse.
Real leaders with real principles would show real results.

Excuses and apologia are the hallmark of this weak administration. Obama was a great campaigner, showed real leadership to get the job. As for governing, the lack of leadership and boldness is embarrassing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Arkana Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 12:01 PM
Response to Reply #72
73. Your post reads like the world's shittiest bumper sticker.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
moksha Donating Member (345 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 12:04 PM
Response to Reply #73
74. Truth can be shitty.
We elected a weak leader with disdain for liberals.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 12:08 PM
Response to Reply #72
76. Obviously, you believe the President can do it all by himself
Edited on Wed Aug-11-10 12:08 PM by ProSense
"Obama was a great campaigner, showed real leadership to get the job. As for governing, the lack of leadership and boldness is embarrassing."

There is this often overlooked branch of government, Congress, that had nothing to do with his campaigning, but everything to do with governing.

They write or shape legislation. The President can dictate his desires and push for them, but Congress must act before he gets to sign anything into law. Mostly, the President defines a direction and goal, and Congress fights over the details.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
moksha Donating Member (345 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 12:09 PM
Response to Reply #76
77. Meh.
Obama and the other leaders of the party. They are all weak and ineffective. Sure, the blame can go around, but Obama owns the largest part of it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 12:13 PM
Response to Reply #77
79. "Obama and the other leaders of the party. They are all weak and ineffective."
Seems you missed the entire point of the OP.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
moksha Donating Member (345 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 12:15 PM
Response to Reply #79
81. No. Seems you can't follow a discussion?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 12:21 PM
Response to Reply #81
84. Actually, you were the one
who when called on the fact that Obama is not the entire government, went from blaming Obama solely to claiming that Democratic leaders are weak and ineffective. "Meh"

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jeff In Milwaukee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 12:15 PM
Response to Reply #77
82. Woah. Woah. Wait.
"Obama and the other leaders of the party."

That's pretty much a 180 from your original statement. Obama can't get anything through Congress unless he has the votes to make it happen. And lining up the votes would be the bailiwick of Sen. Reid and Rep. Pelosi.

But even more germaine, it's also due to the fact that Republicans in the Senate (with the help of Ben Nelson and Blanche Lincoln) can effectively spike any legislation they don't like.

There's a damned big difference between and excuse and a reason. There's a REASON why we didn't get the Public Option, and that's because the votes weren't there aren't enough progressive votes in the Senate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
moksha Donating Member (345 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 12:17 PM
Response to Reply #82
83. The reason is because we have not LEADERS. We thought
Obama would be one. He isn't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 12:25 PM
Response to Reply #83
87. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Yavin4 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 12:51 PM
Response to Reply #87
90. If Obama Pushed Hard on the ConservaDems
Then they would form a powerful alliance against him:

1. They could openly oppose him on everything, and would probably fare better in their home states.

2. They would received tons of money from corporate donors.

3. They would get sympathetic media coverage.

4. They would form alliances with Republicans on major pieced of legislation.

That's political reality folks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jeff In Milwaukee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 01:13 PM
Response to Reply #90
94. Here's a list
Edited on Wed Aug-11-10 01:14 PM by Jeff In Milwaukee
Democratic Senators in states the George W. Bush won in 2008

Max Baucus
Mark Begich
Kent Conrad
Byron Dorgan
Carte Goodwin
Tim Johnson
Mary Landrieu
Claire McCaskill
Ben Nelson
Mark Pryor
Jay Rockefeller
Jon Tester
Mark Udall

Impressive, no? That's a total of 13 Democratic Senators who could openly oppose the Obama Administration and not necessarily pay for it back home.

Edit: Inadvertently listed Ohio as a Bush State in 2008. My apologies to Ohio, I know you worked hard to turn Blue!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Yavin4 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 03:18 PM
Response to Reply #94
108. And They Would Form A Coalition with Snowe, Collins, Gregg,
Probably McCain, Hatch, and a few other Repubs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OhioBlue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 10:32 PM
Response to Reply #94
124. thank you - we'll give you a pass
b/c you said Bush instead of McCain... didn't know if you meant '04.. (hangs head and shivers at Ken Blackwell memories... lol)

Seriously tho - we did work our asses of in '08 and Jennifer Brunner made sure the vote was honest.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vaberella Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 10:04 AM
Response to Reply #94
147. Exactly. Which debunks this idea a poster earlier said to make these guys pay.
How do you make them pay when in their own state they wouldn't pay?! Obama would be forced to work with these buffoons again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vaberella Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 10:02 AM
Response to Reply #90
146. It's already in effect. Remember when the ConservaDems came around.
First time we had this group in our political history and they came under Obama's term---thanks to Rachel for pointing it out. They did and do form alliances to shut down bills.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SpartanDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 02:24 PM
Response to Reply #72
102. What is "real leadership"?
I love people throw trite phrases without defining them
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CakeGrrl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 02:32 PM
Response to Reply #102
104. It's that stuff that Presidents do in the movies
You know, throwing terra-ists out of AF1 with their bare hands, or making speeches so profound that their political opponents are compelled to do the right thing for the good of the nation, etc. etc.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jeff In Milwaukee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 08:48 PM
Response to Reply #104
118. But you have to admit...
Harrison Ford as President would be Totally Bad Ass.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jester Messiah Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 11:47 AM
Response to Original message
61. Even if it happens it won't matter, it's the filibuster that needs to go.
Even if a senator is a solid liberal, they will soon realize that being opportunistically obstructionist will win them concessions. That's why there is so much entrenched opposition to ending the filibuster, on both sides. The repubs are playing with fire, because if public outcry increases to the point that the filibuster is destroyed, they will have shot the goose that laid the golden eggs. No senator wants that to happen, regardless of the letter that comes after their name.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Yavin4 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 12:52 PM
Response to Reply #61
91. So, If The Republicans Gain Control of the Senate 51-49
You would be okay with no filibuster then. Right?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jester Messiah Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 01:33 PM
Response to Reply #91
97. There will always be a few traitors in the ranks
No matter which ranks you're looking at. I suspect that if the repubs had a 51-49 advantage, we could still count on reasonable repubs like Collins, Snowe, maybe Lindsey Graham to keep their more hardcore brethren from doing serious damage.

There's a trade-off here that you're missing: if you want the ability to make progress when you're in power, you have to allow for the other guy to make progress when he's in power. If you're so afraid of what the other guys might do that you hamstring yourself from doing any effective good when you have the chance, then what is the point in your being in power?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Yavin4 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 03:09 PM
Response to Reply #97
107. So, Then You're Okay With It Then
Okay, you're consistent.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jester Messiah Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 10:17 PM
Response to Reply #107
123. I try to be.
It certainly wouldn't be the end of the world if the filibuster were retired, even if the Repubs did gain momentary advantage. I think we should have faith enough in our democratic institutions that we could weather that storm. We survived eight years of G-dub, I think that speaks well of our resiliency.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Arkana Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 11:50 AM
Response to Original message
65. I don't know if I'd necessarily lump Kay Hagan in with the rest.
She's been good as far as I can tell. Same with McCaskill. Warner hasn't been great, but he's not over-the-top offensive either.

The rest of them can get fucked.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
harun Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 12:14 PM
Response to Original message
80. Pressure. You make a few Repub's offer's they can't refuse.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bvar22 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 12:23 PM
Response to Reply #80
85. Exactly, and Obama knows HOW to do this.
He went after the Progressive Caucus when they balked at giving him his first Supplemental War Appropriation.
I would LOVE to see this White House go after Centrist and Republican votes like he went after the Progressive Caucus.
Obama CAN be a Bulldog when he wants to be.
The Key Phrase is "wants to be."


Hey, you wouldn't be one of those fringe Leftist who wants things like Canadian Style Health Care?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gkhouston Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 10:39 PM
Response to Reply #85
127. He just don't know when, apparently. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 12:25 PM
Response to Reply #80
86. What kind of offers?
Isn't that what compromises are?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Yavin4 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 12:58 PM
Response to Reply #80
93. Can You Be More Specific?
What could Obama offer them?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
harun Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 02:34 PM
Response to Reply #93
105. Myriad of choices...
But the pressure is more important than the offer.

For one, in the Health Care debate he could have offered any of the following in turn for support for a true Public Option:

- Tort Reform (Cap Lawsuits) This would make the rich Republican doctors happy.
- Support for a flat income tax across the board. Again, making rich Republican doctors happy.
- Doctors who pledge to only work at and always accept Public Option insurance holders get their student loan payback assisted dollar for dollar (I.e. they pay back 10 dollars the Gov't chips in 10 dollars) Do something similar for other medical profession loan repayments. Those with no student loans can get other tax benefits for servicing the plan. This would again help make you know who happy.
- Etc. etc.

The Republicans that are left these days are driven solely by greed, you got to put some greed carrots out in front of them to get any movement. If it is a juicy enough carrot, they'll go for it.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Yavin4 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 03:30 PM
Response to Reply #105
110. The Only Pressure That Republicans Respond To Is From The Right
Compromise with Obama and you pay the price. See Charlie Crist.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bvar22 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 11:04 PM
Response to Reply #110
128. Then WHY did Obama give away
almost everything that "Democratic" about the Health Care Bill?
He got NOTHING in return.
THAT is not "compromise".
THAT is "Capitulation."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
harun Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 07:56 AM
Response to Reply #128
135. Compromises were all for industry, their real boss and who they really represent.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vaberella Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 10:07 AM
Response to Reply #80
148. Can you give me examples of offer's Repubs can't refuse?
Hello. There were ConservaDems who went against Obama---and there was nothing he could really offer them---since they wouldn't pay for it back at the ballot box. So you think Obama has more leverage against the Repub's? Maybe he had a gay sex tape of them, then maybe he'd have some leverage. Or Virginia Foxx in a porno or something. Otherwise, there's nothing really, that I can think of, that he can offer to get them to change their minds.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iamthebandfanman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 12:28 PM
Response to Original message
88. wait, i thought us ultra liberals were the pessimists n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
damntexdem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 12:29 PM
Response to Original message
89. Hmm, here's a first step:
solid liberals in the Senate start acting that way.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ibegurpard Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 05:06 PM
Response to Original message
116. well, that's beside the point.... we need one in the White House too
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
4lbs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 05:35 PM
Response to Original message
117. The "50 State Strategy" was designed to get a sizable Democratic majority in Congress.
Democratic. That means ALL types of Democrats.

It didn't mean a Progressive majority. Just a Democratic majority.

Just try getting 51 Progressive Senators in Congress, much less the 60 needed to neuter the filibuster.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheKentuckian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 09:14 PM
Response to Reply #117
119. The base law of the land says if you have the White House then 50 wins
Senate rules do not supersede the Constitution.

That fifty supposedly was generally there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
4lbs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 09:36 AM
Response to Reply #119
137. The Senate rules also have been around since the early 1970s in that any filibuster requires 60
Senators to overcome it.

It could have been much worse. Before the rules were changed in the 1970s, the original number was 2/3 (or 67 Senators), which was the same to overcome a Presidential veto.

The Senate rules don't supersede the Constitution? Umm, they are part of the Constitution.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheKentuckian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 10:15 AM
Response to Reply #137
149. That of course is pretty much non-germain to my statement
Senate rules do not supersede the Constitution and you know it.

The Constitution is exceedingly clear and specific on this matter. The Senate is free to set it's own rules but it is well known that this one is purely allowed on sufferance. Calling a Constitutional matter when the President of the Senate is with you means a tie wins, that's 50+1 is all it ever takes to pass anything into law and send it to the President or to conference.

You can buy your fantasy forever but you will be wrong as the stars go dim. The Constitutional or more popularly referred to "nuclear option" is no secret and real as a heart attack. There is no remedy for it, there is no ambiguity in the Constitution at all. It is literally logically impossible to rule a majority or even 50+1 as not binding.

If you think that the section allowing the Senate to set it's own rules can possibly override one of the most clear and specific clause in the Constitution.

Say you have no stomach for it or that it is dangerous all you please but your misunderstanding of the law will not be swallowed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
4lbs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 10:52 AM
Response to Reply #149
151. True you need 50+1 to pass a bill on an actual vote. But that's not I'm talking about.
Edited on Thu Aug-12-10 10:56 AM by 4lbs
The problem isn't with the actual vote.

Once a bill comes up for an actual vote, it has usually passed.

It's ending debate and getting to the vote that has been the problem. That's where the cloture and filibuster have come in.

The Republicans won't even let the bill come to a vote. They filibuster and add amendments so it gets stuck in debate forever, or at least it seems like forever. When the Democrats try to end debate and actually vote on the bill, they can't get the 60 required to do so.

Thus, it doesn't matter if the President has 56 Senators and the V.P. on his side. If his side can't get 4 more Senators (assuming all 56 vote his way as well) to vote for cloture, no bill will ever come up for a vote such that 50+1 could pass it. That's what the Republicans have been doing. Preventing bills from even coming up for final vote.

The filibuster rules are clear and a part of the Constitution. To change them requires even more Senators than to break a filibuster. Two-thirds of the Senators must vote to change the number to break a filibuster. That means not only 58 Democrats, the two Independents, but at least 7 Republicans must vote to do that. Do you really see 7 Republicans at the minimum, voting to lower the cloture requirement and allow the Democrats an easy time of passing bills?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hippo_Tron Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 09:43 PM
Response to Original message
120. Begich, Tester, Dorgan, Rockefeller, McCaskill, and Hagan are pretty reliable Dem votes
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wisteria Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 09:55 PM
Response to Original message
121. Senator's are suppose to represent the voters in their states and many of these
senators come from states where the voters are moderate to conservative. Are some suggesting that these senators should ignore the majority of voters who elected them in order to pursue and vote just as Liberals dictate? I am trying to understand how we can be the party of the people and then attempt to ignore or silence some moderate to conservative Democrats.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clio the Leo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 10:15 PM
Response to Original message
122. Easy! We make Fantasy Island the 51st state and give them 40 Senators!
Easy Peasy!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OhioBlue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 10:38 PM
Response to Original message
126. maybe we learn to live with the conservadems
and look for the liberal votes elsewhere.

Hopefully we will add one in Ohio when Lee Fisher (D) is elected to fill George Voinovich's (retiring R) seat. Wish it would have been Jennifer Brunner - she would be another Sherrod Brown for Ohio.. but even tho I think Fisher is a little more corporate and opportunist than I would like... I am pretty sure he'll still be a solid Dem.

There must be other races this year or in 2 where we can take an R seat and turn it into a progressive Dem seat rather than only focusing on primaries. When is Brown (Mass) up for re-election?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JamesA1102 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 11:20 PM
Response to Original message
129. Don't confuse the demagogues with facts. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
krispos42 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 11:36 PM
Response to Original message
131. Break up the big states
Edited on Wed Aug-11-10 11:36 PM by krispos42
To keep the representative-to-senator ratio from getting out of whack. Those 41 Repubs only represent 34% of the population.

Make the maximum ratio of representatives to senators be 6:1. Force the states to divide up into smaller states as they get more populous so the populations don't get under-represented in the Senate.

If we did that, we'd jump from 50 to 67 states in one fell swoop. It would take 81 out of 134 senators to overcome a filibuster, then.

It would also give the new states chances to incorporate the latest theories in democracy into their governmental structures, such as instant-runoff voting, multi-party politics, maybe a parlimentrary system.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Freddie Stubbs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 08:03 AM
Response to Original message
136. You are not going to get 60 liberal votes in the Senate
Our country has too many conservatives and moderates for that to happen. Conversely, we have too many liberals and moderates for there to be 60 conservatives in the Senate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Laelth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 09:38 AM
Response to Original message
138. Not by attacking the base, that's for sure.
I'd try actually standing for something progressive, but that's just me.

-Laelth
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vaberella Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 09:48 AM
Response to Original message
142. If people had a clue they'd realize the biggest crutch to anything progressive is listed above.
And they have always been the problem from the damned start. If Obama said public option or even single payer and the 17 above were progressives we'd have it now. But on DU they think Obama could get anything done if he just said the word. Ugh..thanks for this Prosense.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Chan790 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 11:27 AM
Response to Reply #142
153. It's a matter of perspective...
Edited on Thu Aug-12-10 11:29 AM by Chan790
and it starts with Lieberman. I remember the day that President Obama came out and vociferously advocated that Holy Joe not be punished for his high-profile defections.

In all, it was the beginning of the end of the President's agenda. Nobody and I do mean nobody dared break ranks on major policy initiatives before that point for fear of an executive kneecapping. Even Ben Nelson. Since that day, since it became obvious that President would not act to cut off at the knees his enemies within his own party and caucus, the defections have been fast and furious.

Was this not what Rahm Emanuel was brought into the administration for? Where is the leg-breaking to get what the President needs to get through Congress? One of my favorite quotes in politics, when LBJ was whip in the US Senate, he told a fellow Democrat: "If you break with me, your constituents will end up drinking rainwater and shitting in tin-cans." The message could not be clearer, I control the agenda. If you do not fall into line, I will end you. I will undermine you with your constituents.

"Joe, it's good to talk to you. I've been looking at some of our expenditures. These contracts to Pratt and Whitney, to Electric Boat, increased military aid to Israel. I don't think we can afford these things if we don't get this economy under control." Message sent. "Ben, I've come to realize how much of the cost of a public option we can offset by ending corn subsidies." Message sent. "We've identified the need to build another federal super-maximum prison, one to house multiple-murderers. Why, yes Congresswoman. Several of the sites we're considering are in your district." Message sent.

If we don't want to keep losing incrementally, we've got to remember how to play hardball. Sometimes, a high-inside pitch does wonders to back 'em off the plate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vaberella Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 12:59 PM
Response to Reply #153
156. It has nothing to do with the President.
The President doesn't vote in Democrats. The people vote them in. This is the problem from the beginning. Obama really can't shift the polls towards one candidate or another. However, he still is obligated in a way to support them in their primary runs for a reason. We all know that with the electoral college we don't really vote for the President. These House reps have more say in who eventually becomes President than anything else. Further more if he think he can have leverage on something that these people might be interested in---these people will lean towards his side so he has to be cordial.

You're statements above are ludicrous. What you're calling for is out right violence, threats, and terrorizing in order to get what you want. In what world would that ever happen or even be realistic? Really. This not the time of LBJ and Obama is not LBJ and neither is Congress anything like LBJ's congress. There are factors and issues that affect each situation that makes them unique. LBJ even made significant amount of compromises in his issues that people seem to ignore. To even mention Lieberman is just a strawman. You want a President who follows the rule of law, upholds it, and be an advocate of intelligence and diplomacy but you fault him for tolerating Lieberman? In Civics we're taught that the people vote for the elected officials. So Obama, as the President, doesn't fire the elected officials. Those people are voted in by the people. Obama has to deal with the officials the people of a district put in place. If you have issues with Lieberman, then take it out on his constituents not on Obama. To blame Obama for tolerating him is absolute madness.

I didn't see Obama vociferously defending Lieberman, but I think many people see what what they want. As for people not wanting to break ranks with the President---that's ludicrous. The first day he came on board he signed to close Gitmo. Several Congressmen were with him, and then when he asked for funding to move out the prisoners and send a few to maximum security prisons in the US----those people disappeared. That was in the first month. This had nothing to do with knee-capping or whatever crap you were mentioning, these people are just weak. Weak. He even advocated on finding some place to put the prisoners and has been trying and he's still being blocked by the House on this. Even DUers were supporting Congress for not providing Obama with funding so Gitmo could close. So Please on this. There has been dissension from the get go and much of it coming from the clowns in the OP. All of them have been like this.


I think I'm just utterly shocked how your "perspective" puts Obama at fault for even Congress---which is utterly independent of him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndianaGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 04:52 PM
Response to Original message
159. By not voting for Blue Dogs and Conservadems!
If you vote for shit, you'll get only shit!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Oct 24th 2014, 10:55 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC