If the President of the United States calls for a meeting I would think

[monmouth]

you cancel whatever else was on your schedule, and you attend. Frankly, the repubs were rude but are pushing to see how much they can get away with in this type of behavior. Apparently they can get away with whatever disrespect they deem to show this President and I fully blame him for not insisting on their attendance. It seems there will be more and more capitulation down the road from this President, his need to be liked/loved by the right and I'm sick of it.

[AndrewP]

1. Is their rudeness surprising though?

[monmouth]

2. Not at all, but I'm so disappointed there are no harsh comebacks from Dems...n/t

[AndrewP]

3. Yeah....I agree with that.

[bigwillq]

50. And therein lies the problem.

Where are our Democrats? :shurg: You know, the ones we elected to serve us? Well, they're not really serving us.

[WI_DEM]

4. Obama needs more wake up calls like this--he needs to stop accomodating them

and doing what he thinks is best for the country and then fight for it and if he loses at least he will have lost fighting for the right things.

[zbdent]

5. back when it was Bush, I remember hearing people talking about those who disagreed with Bush ...

"When the President of the United States wants to meet with you, YOU MEET WITH THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES."

Of course, didn't they applaud the football player from the Superbowl victory who refused to go to the White House to meet with Obama, despite the usual record of "World Champion" teams being "met" by whichever President there is?

[treestar]

6. You thoroughly blame him and not them?

I thought liberals were against blaming the victim? It's clear who the victim of the rudeness is here.

[Dr Fate]

8. I'm not sure that casting Obama as a "victim" is the image you should want to portray.

Then again, it may be the most accurate portrayal.

[treestar]

11. Victim of rudeness

Which could happen to anyone.

[Dr Fate]

15. Well you just keep right on with that talking point.

I'm sure the "Hey look- those Republicans are being rude & mean to the poor, poor, president" is really going to register with swing voters.

The GOP base will LOVE this news, and swing voters could CARE LESS. Go figure.

I might be wrong, but I'd guess that swing voters and voters in general dont really give a crap about "decorum" and such.

What is Obama's direct response to this?

[treestar]

22. What is he supposed to do?

what is it, exactly that you demand? That he fire the Congresspeople involved. :rofl:

If they are going to be assholes (as Republicans will do) let them. Reacting to it would be what makes him look "weak."

[Dr Fate]

23. Have people complain about it on this website, what else?

I forgot- DU is the place where centrists just talk about all the mean things Republcians do- it's not the place where we come up with ways for DEMS to fight.

What can Obama & Democrats do about it? We still hold the congress- how about censuring the Republicans who refused to show up?

OHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH- I forgot- that would make us look weak. What other excuses do we have? Oh- how about "We dont have the votes!" That was always one I treasured.

If reacting to it makes us look weak, then why are you reacting to it? Why should we react to it here at DU if elected DEMS choose not to?

Dont give me the: "Look at the Republicans being mean to me!" without also giving me the "Look at what we did to fight back against the Republicans!"

Believe it or not, I think certain swing voters would rather see this as well.

[treestar]

31. Censuring them?

What does that mean?

This is not high school. It would look better to just ignore them. And it appears to have been a misunderstanding regarding scheduling conflicts. There is no issue here. Except for those whose goal in life is to help the M$M and the Republicans use every little thing they can get their hands on to find fault with Obama.

[Dr Fate]

42. Censure seemed REAL important to DEMS when it was time to censure anti-Bush Liberals.

It seemed awfully important for centrist Democrats to be seen censuring and otherwise taking on Moveon and DEM congressmen who dared to go after the GOP. What is the hold up now?

Funny how DEM centrists supported the censure to fight anti-Bush Liberals, but now, when it's time to use it against Repubs, we roll out all our excuses.

Schedling conflict? That sounds like a BS excuse/spin from the GOP to me. For all I know, you are just saying that b/c you know DEMS are not going to do anything about this.

A meeting called by The Commander in Chief is top priority should come first- lobbyist meetings, etc. come later.

Funny how the theme went from "Those damn rude Republicans!" to "Wait- it's just a simple misunderstanding- stop trying to make us fight back" so quickly.

[Pirate Smile]

9. It is Obama's fault what the Republicans do and what the Democrats in Congress do.

RW & LW blame Obama for everything.

We could just say the Republicans look like assholes like usual but why do that. Better to blame President Obama.

[treestar]

12. I know, can you believe, Republicans are rude and disrespectful

and that is the President's fault? Sounds like something Republicans/Bullies would say.

[monmouth]

10. Yes, I blame him for again, appearing weak and having no

communication to call them out.

[treestar]

13. So if someone is rude to me, I am the one who is weak?

Sounds like a Bully's motto.

[Dr Fate]

16. If you are the boss and you call a meeting...

...and the people below your command blow it off, then yes, that is a sign that they have nothing to fear and that you have not commanded respect.

It is surely a sign that those below your command are basically going to do this again and again until something is done about it.

What is Obama going to do about it?

Note: Edited to change the semantics.

[treestar]

19. Congresspersons are not the President's employees

They are a separate branch of the government.

[Dr Fate]

21. I changed it to read "people below his command". Any more semantics that we need to clear up?

???

[treestar]

36. Congress is not "below the President's command."

They are supposed to be a separate branch. Lacking in basic civics knowledge, you tipped your hand on that by declaring the President is supposed to lead congress and comparing him to a boss at a company.

[Dr Fate]

51. Yes- so silly of me to think that the Presidency is a higher office than congress.

Yes- I certainly did "tip my hand" with my outrageous notion that Presidents can assert their influence over congress, and that the Presidency is a higher office than that held by a congressman.

Also silly for me to think that an "Executive" is kind of like the Boss of an organization, who can call meetings and expect the other people at the company to show up.

[ChiciB1]

59. Ya Know, Sometimes There Are People Who Just Don't Get It. Let Me See,

even if MY FATHER were to summon me for a talk, unless he was a rapist or some other kind of criminal, I'd think it would be "proper" for me to BE THERE. Not being there would probably mean I would face "some" consequences. Mainly because I respect my father, and he is basically the CEO of most families.

No one said he was THE BOSS, but I don't think it needed to be said. Pretty simple to me. Of course, if I wanted to be a real BRAT I would just say SCREW YOU!

Kind of seems like what THEY did, at least that's what many would perceive it to be.

[monmouth]

17. If you don't assert yourself then yes. He's the POTUS for god' sake,

and he's getting wimpier everyday. They wouldn't pull this s$%t with Pelosi and get away with it..Bully? You're funny.

[treestar]

20. How is he to assert himself?

The President is not in charge of Congress. It is a separate branch. have it be a cabinet member, and we can talk.

You're not funny, you're walking the line of bullyhood, asking the President to act like one so as to avoid being called a "wimp." It is bullies who call others wimps to justify their behavior.

[Dr Fate]

24. Yeah, that's right- I want Obama to be a bully. LOL!

Unless he just sits there and takes it, he's a bully. Gotcha.

How about LEADING the congress to censure the Republicans who "refused the call of the election mandate for bi-partisanship" and to "help the Prsident do the work of the American people?"

That is just the first thing that popped into my mind. Obama himself as well as ELECTED Democrats with media access could go on TV and repeat it over and over and over as an example about how the GOP is "extremely dishonest", "lazy" and "hypocritical" about working with the President. Use those phrases.

I know, I know, we have an excuse for not doing that. May as well list them all now.

Let's see-

1) "Fighting Bullies makes you look like a Bully"

2) Voter's hate Bullies. (Bush elected twice)

3) It's too hard.

You guys can finish the rest...

Funny how this thread got turned around so quick- it went from:

"Look at the awful things the Republicans did" to "Hey- dont expect us to actually DO anything about said awful Republicans..." pretty quickly.

Again- Dont give me the: "Look at the Republicans being mean to me!" without also giving me the "Look at what we did to fight back against the Republicans!"

[treestar]

35. Leading the Congress?

They are supposed to be a separate branch. No President is weak because Congress won't do something. Was Bush called a wimp because the 2006 elected Congress wouldn't do everything he wanted?

And as Democrats, they did not treat Bush disrespectfully. For which they were often called wimps on DU.

Yes, let Republicans be awful and be above it. Really if you think that's weakness you have no idea what strength is. And here is just looks like you want a show of who is the toughest. If Obama came out in the media censuring the Rs for not coming to a meeting, that would just look worse and you'd still be calling him weak.

Are you wanting this type of thing to happen to a Democratic President? Because you seem to be really reaching to be able to call him weak. If you want "strong" on the terms you seem to define it, become a Republican.

[Dr Fate]

44. Oh- I forgot- under new "far center" rules, the modern President has zero influence over congress.

Apparently he does not even have their phone #s or anything.

[dave29]

63. I'm pretty sure the President made a few phone calls

if not a lot.

[Dr Fate]

65. And yet I'm told that the Executive branch has no potential influence over congress. n/t

n/t

[dave29]

74. I doubt that's what you are told exactly.

The President can twist arms, and has done so. But you can only twist so far as the Constitution allows you.

[Dr Fate]

79. I never suggested that the President should violate the constitution, n/t

n/t

[FSogol]

7. Have the Secret Service do a full body cavity search on Boehner and McConnell the next time

they come to the White House. Take their belts, ties, and shoe laces away from them.

[dave29]

14. Have any of ya'll ever taken a political science class?

I am curious because it seems that maybe the President understands that the Republicans are refusing everything he throws at them. His reasons for continuing to try and be "bipartisan" may be more than just plain stupidity, rigid idealism about comity, and a sign of weakness.

Maybe, just maybe, he knows what he is doing?

And PLEASE spare me the three dimensional chess. Remaining above the fray keeps this President popular. Maybe not with you, but with the American public at large... yup.

And remaining popular gives him the slightest chance to continue with the agenda we would like moved forward.

[Dr Fate]

18. We heard all of this b/f the midterms. Keep on telling it. n/t

n/t

[dave29]

25. what about it is incorrect?

?

[de novo]

26. That it will result in successful elections.

[dave29]

34. worked pretty well in '08

, just sayin

[Dr Fate]

41. Oh- you mean back when Pro PO liberals & anti-war moderates, etc. kicked ass for him.

And were inspired to do so.

Hell- I know plenty swing-voter types who thought he was going to free up war spending for more middle class benefits-in a way that they could see it and feel it in their wallets. At this point, they were willing to go back and just vote for the guys promising "more tax cuts."

Hell, for that matter, most people watching TV saw him painted as a socialist radical who was really going to shake things up- they either saw through that BS (Since when does that happen?) or they beleived it and voted for him anyway.

Centrists were warned that '08 dynamics were no going to be the same as '10. It's not my fault if they refused to listen.

[dave29]

45. for what it's worth, you are not talking to a centrist

all of our discussions do not have to take the Centrist vs. Left approach.

I do not deny what you say, but it betrays what was important to you that you are angry about. I understand completely not getting those things we all wanted was disappointing, but what "non-weak" dems should be doing is putting on their big boy/girl pants, buckling in and making progress where we can. Blaming the President for being weak, is in my humble opinion, about the weakest argument there is, especially against this particular President.

We can continue to argue over what approach he has been taking with Congress (whether or not he twisted enough arms vigorously enough, or worked diligently to get what he could from his policy positions passed), or we can face reality, realize we have even less to work with (as was bound to happen by any historical measure), and move towards getting what we can, even now.

I truly understand the urge to have a superhero President. We are surrounded by caricatures in our popular entertainment, and we all read what we wanted to into Obama's election victory in '08. To most of us, we saw a man unafraid to be post-partisan in a hyper-partisan environment, and we recognize that is why he was elected, and remains popular to this day (even amongst his base if you look at any poll).

Screaming at the opposition, or steam-rolling them via executive fiat will pretty much seal the Republicans back into the driver's seat, since it has been pretty obvious for many years now that if you want folks who are imbeciles yet appear "strong" for the cameras, Republicans win every time.

[Dr Fate]

54. You seem to get part of what I'm saying, and I see your points too.

I never said we need a super hero- just guy who can stick up for himself. It's not just Obama- it sems to be much of the party and judging from DU, many of his supporters on the ground.

Everyone here seems to think we should just drop this so that the snub does not make the President look any weaker than he already does- I 've seen this "strategy" applied in many areas and I have yet to see it really work.

[dave29]

58. I just do not look at his actions and see them as

weak, or that he looks "weaker than he already does" by doing this or that.

I see a strong President with weak-minded adversaries who happen to have their water carried for them by the media, and impatient (for good reason, but ill-advised in my opinion) folks within the left who feel he can "look stronger" fighting them. Ghandi would laugh at all of this.

Personally, after the polite but obvious smack-down the Republican's received the last time he was invited to speak to their caucus it is obvious to me that this is clearly the reason they are scared to have him anywhere near them today. They would rather go and whine to their lapdogs in the media, where it then becomes a "story" and finds it's way over to places like Politico and Huff Post that specialize in making their advertisers happy. And their readers angry.

[Denzil_DC]

92. Dave Neiwert agrees with you

http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/republicans-postpone-obama-meeting-a

So do I.

[Dr Fate]

27. Errr, we lost the midterms by doing it your way. 'Member? n/t

n/t

[dave29]

32. I'm sorry I did not realize we employed the dave29 method

to midterm victory.

What are you talking about?

The President was knocking the GOP around quite a bit before the election. Is that "my way" ? I seem to remember folks around here saying "Where was THIS President?!!1elevens"

and then... we lost, as was bound to happen due to the economy. Note the public still hates the GOP despite having stupidly elected them.

[Dr Fate]

38. His post sounded like all the typical "far center" talking downs that I heard until our defeat.

Surely you knew that is what I meant.

I dont see how the old talking points, excuses and other failed strategies that got us nowhere are going to start working now.

[dave29]

39. Respectfully, the "he is weak" talking point started well before he landed the Presidency

if we want to talk meme-age, you are winning hands down

[Dr Fate]

46. If you mean charges from DEMS-Is that charge still merely a talking point?

I dont see him as all that strong anymore.

Also, I dont care about Republicans who claimed he is "weak on FP" or whatever.

If you are stating that certain DEMS warned us about him being weak b/f the election, then I'd say that maybe they were on to something. He can work to start proving them wrong right now.

For the record-I supported him 100% in the primary and the election. I invite anyone to go search through my posts to find otherwise.

[dave29]

52. I am not claiming anything about your loyalty

fwiw, The reason the argument failed before the election from Republicans AND Democrats was because it was patently absurd. Just look at what he overcame to be in a position to even run for President and the absurd echo chamber he has had to contend with.

Obama fought through that, and got elected. Any President elected would have faced the same accusations, as they do, regardless of who they are, when a specific constituency (in the case of a President, as opposed to a candidate = the entire American populace to work from) does not get what they want.

You don't care what the Republicans said, but maybe the Dems were on to something?

Ok.

I just do not buy the argument that facing the worst crisis left to any President since the Great Depression (please read the sentence twice), Obama was somehow "weak" in tackling everything that he did.

He did great, with little support, and less by the day, which... TO ME, means he is doing right by everyone, as best he can.

[Dr Fate]

57. That argument failed in '08- but the perception of "caving" and weakness existed in '10.

This is why so many on the left failed to GOTV and in some instances, maybe not even vote or go indie. They had a perception that he was caving and was weak against conservatives in both parties. Like it or not, these once loyal, ass-busting members of our base could now be considered a type of "swing voter" that we need to get back.

Many independent moderates who thought he was going to curb war spending in favor of middle class benefits probably see him as caving too. These voters could probably care less about the attendence of this meeting, but I'll bet the news did not suprise them one bit.

You dont have to buy the argument and I dont have to buy it- we are partisan DEMS who vote straight D no matter what.

Amongst the rest of the electorate the perception of caving or weakness exists, and that is why this article (and the anticipated lack of DEM push back) will suprise no one.

[dave29]

62. The perception exists

because it gets propagated nonstop here and everywhere else with good intentions or not. Sure, it does not exist in a vacuum. I can understand why some may perceive him this way... but looking at his approval, I would dare say the vast majority of the public do not see him this way, and in fact admire him for his sincerity in desiring bipartisan solutions. Neither party wants to go along, and we all get to suffer for their inability to do so. It's not like it's his fault. He wasn't going to make anything happen by gnashing his teeth, and that was never him to begin with. Some of us figured out a long time ago that the Republicans are obstructionists. It never hurts, politically, to continue to have them paint themselves into that corner. If you think this election was a referendum on a weak President, I'm really sad you buy into that. It was a completely predictable reaction to the economy and the hyper-partisans on each side showing up..... or not.

[Dr Fate]

68. I never asked him to gnash his teeth, just to fight for and win votes.

If it keeps you going to to think that the public views Obama as a tough guy who takes the war mongers, Eco-terrorists, greed-heads, out-sourcers and other conservatives to task- hey, whatever gets you through the night.

I think you are getting some things correct in your analysis, the rest of the time you are being a good soldier. March on!

[dave29]

72. Honestly I don't see this as being a good soldier

rather my impression of the matter at hand. It's not about cheerleading, marching, whatever. It's my honest to God opinion.

Imagine that!

[Dr Fate]

73. Fair enough. n/t

n/t

[Clio the Leo]

102. Exactly .... there are several reasons why Barack Obama is the most popular man in DC...

... and these days, that's saying something .... I think his desire to keep his palm permanently extended is one of the reasons.

[Tatiana]

103. Remaining above the fray keeps the President popular with whom? n/t

[BklnDem75]

28. Unrec and Pathetic

So now it's Obama's fault that repukes are assholes, too? Is there anything you won't blame Obama for?

[Dr Fate]

29. Yes- Democrats should be fighting the Republicans who did this, not Obama. Any ideas?

Any ideas on how elected Democrats can DO SOMETHING about this, or is this just another excuse fest/pitty party/ "look at what those mean old Republcians did to us again" type threads?

[BklnDem75]

33. Unless there's a change in the Constitution,

People are generally free to be assholes. You're certainly not helping by passing along the message they're trying to convey. Congrats

[Dr Fate]

37. Wrong answer. Those congressmen can be censured, at the least.

I'm looking for ways to fight Republicans, not excuses for letting them do whatever the hell they want.

So you think that making excuses is somehow more helpful than looking for ways to fight back?

Sounds like typical far-center strategy to me. You rememeber those guys right- there used to be more of them until a few weeks ago.

[BklnDem75]

40. Censure? Really?

Did we magically gain two thirds majority in the Senate? Fighting repukes is great, but it's even better to work within the realm of reality, not fantasy. If you're conveying the message that Dems, in general, are weak, then you're not fighting repukes, you're helping them.

[Dr Fate]

49. DEMS advocated for the censure of Moveon and Congressmen Stark. Why not this?

Seems like it is always soooooo easy to get Democrats to attack the anti-GOP left, but so hard to get them to address or counter Republican attacks.

What are your ideas for countering or exposing this?

If you are saying that should just walk away and forget about it- fine. That is what we do for most everything else- I'm used to it.

[BklnDem75]

75. Apparently...

It's still easy to get Democrats to attack their own. How's this for a solution: How about we stop passing along their memes and start treating THEM like the enemy?

[Dr Fate]

78. You mean like when DEMS attacked their own when they advocated censure for Rep. Stark & Moveon?

DEMS attacked their own in that instance b/c they thought the DEMS were being disrespectful to conservatives.

All I ask is that we now attack REPUBLICANS for similar disrespectful acts.

Yes- let's treat THEM-the GOP- like the enemy and fight to censure these bastards like we did when we attacked & censured our own.

Funny how you think Democrats like me are "attacking their own" when we suggest that DEMS should fight Republicans as hard as they fight Liberal Democrats.

[BklnDem75]

81. Get it right...

CONSERVATIVES censured MoveOn, but I suppose it's easier to lump all Dems, liberals and blue dogs, together to fit your argument. Democrats voted down the measure to censure Stark. Where are you getting your information from? 5 Blue dogs vote with pukes and that makes your argument? How did those two events work out for the pukes in 2008 again?

[Dr Fate]

83. Exactly- Conservative Democrats advocated for the censure of Liberals.

And it was reeeeeeal important too- we heard elected DEMS debate over it for days and days.

There was all kind of debate on whether we should or should not censure Liberals- we will never see a similar debate on whether to censure these GOPers.

Damned if you will ever get the centrist DEMS to go after the other conservatives...

As far as censure goes, we cant get the conservative Democrats who seem to call the shots to attack or even engage is a debate with their fellow consetrvatives. That is reserved for Moveon and fellow Democrats.

LOL! I never lumped in conservative DEMS with Liberals- in fact, I charged that conservative DEMS attacked Liberal DEMS by advocating their censure. Twice.

Hey- I've already agreed that we will just sit back and do nothing- I like getting predictions right as much as anyone.

I just wanted to see what the excuse dejure was this time. Noted. Thanks!

[BklnDem75]

86. No excuse is needed

Like clockwork, they make a headline and you reacted marvelously. The pukes have done their job.

[Dr Fate]

89. And yet so many excuses have been provided in this thread, just in case.

I admit it- Pukes have "fooled" me into believing that DEMS are not going to address this or fight back as to the disrepect these congressmen are showing our President.

The probable fact that Democrats are not going to counter this, as you and I both seem to predict, has nothing to do with my perceptions. Yes, the media is *fooling* me into somehow KNOWING that DEMS are not going to fight back. Right.

It's all just pukes playing tricks on me. Uh-huh. Gotcha.

[BklnDem75]

93. Actually, you just fooled yourself

Repukes hurt themselves with these childish tactics, and you're more than ready to engage them in the mud. As worked up as you want to be over all this, it's really not that serious.

[Dr Fate]

94. I was told all about how the Republicans were hurting themselves b/f the midterms too.

Same old crap.

We agree that it is not all that serious-no more or no less serious than when Conservative DEMS fought to censure Liberals, that is.

This is just one time out of literally thousands where DEMS will "let it slide." I'm used to it.

I'm basically here just to "collect" excuses and "stop saying we should fight back" type talking points.

Apparently it is one of the most valued skills here at DU.

Sadly, I'm not seeing too many new excuses to collect, most of these I'm seeing are like 10 years old.

[Life Long Dem]

30. Did the Repubs even say they were sorry they couldn't attend?

Or was it a matter of fact simply stated they will not be attending?

If it was Bush he'd be asking for an apology.

[krawhitham]

43. Obama gets no respect anywhere

Be it in DC or here at DU

[polichick]

48. If you want respect, you have to act like someone who expects it. nt

[dave29]

53. huh?

"If you want respect, you have to act like someone who expects it"

Did you read that on a coffee mug somewhere? I think maybe we may need to revisit the Criticism Quote Grab Bag.

[polichick]

56. You can laugh, but you should think it through...

There are no consequences for their disrespect, so they continue. The prez doesn't act like he expects them to be respectful - he lets them get away with it.

[dave29]

66. I have thought it through, so many times, and I am not laughing.

I am very sad this is idea is bought into around here. The President fights back, frequently, in a measured way, that allows him to remain Presidential and above the fray. He descends down into it, and he is no longer "Presidential". Every direction he turns, someone will spin it as a wrong move.

What folks don't seem to understand is that he is screwed regardless of what he does, such is the life of a President. Scream at him all you want, or have his back, he's still the President and by default, should have some measure of respect afforded to him. He earned it by getting elected.

If you feel he sucks at Governing, feel free to Primary him. Personally I think he's pretty good at governing given all of the circumstances surrounding his Presidency and his own background.

But that's just me, and maybe about 50 % of the electorate.

[polichick]

67. Sorry you don't get it - and sorry he doesn't either. nt

[dave29]

76. I guess were just a bunch of sorry people

:hi:

[polichick]

88. Just a little naive about dealing with disrespectful bullies. nt

[dave29]

90. When I was in 4th grade

There was this kid. Spencer Olsen (I remember his name). He was going around punching kids in the stomach during recess, because he could. He was feared by all kids. He was the school bully.

I admit, I even was a bit frightened by him. And one day, it was my turn. He came up to me, and POP, right in the stomach. However, and this was the funny bit, it did not hurt me in the slightest. I would like to say it was some sort of Brad-Pitt-like abdominal muscles genetic precursor... but, the truth was, it just did not hurt me for whatever reason. And I stood there, and laughed at him. And he did not know what to do with himself.

He never bothered me, or any of my friends again.

All I needed to learn about bullies, I learned in 4th grade.

Call me naive, that's fine.

[polichick]

95. You didn't learn the lesson if you think the prez doesn't have to do something...

...different and unexpected in response to Republican bullies if he wants to be respected.

[dave29]

98. if he wants to be respected....

by you

[polichick]

99. By Republicans of course. :)

[polichick]

47. Yep, they're like disrespectful teenagers who are begging to be reigned in...

I so wish the prez would use ALL of his powers to reign them in - and Congress too. Really, can we have a REAL filibuster for once?

[FrenchieCat]

55. The all powerful media will cover for them once again......

as that is what they do.

[Dr Fate]

60. What are elected DEMS on TV saying they are going to do about it right now? Tonight?

Or are they covering for someone?

And please dont dust off that old talking point about how elected DEMS are either no allowed on TV or that they get their mics cut if they bring up stuff like this.

If this is something the public needs to hear about, then house hold name,elected DEMS with media access dont need to wait for Wolf Blitzer to bring it up- they can get the dialogue rolling themsleves...

Why are we waiting for RW owned media corporations to repeat our talking points FOR us?

[FrenchieCat]

61. Deny the media's role in all things political,

and how they manipulate public opinion,
and put fear into all and any Dem politician,
like they deep-sixed Howard Dean, John Kerry,
and so many others.

Go ahead and defend the media and make then less of a factor then they are....
they'll love you for it.

[Dr Fate]

64. Deny elected Democrat's role in bringing up things that concern Democrats,

All you say about the media is true- yet you did not refute a single thing I said.

The media is owned by Republicans, yet certain DUers think that it is good strategy to just sit and wait for them to cover and frame a story.

I say that elected Demcorats with media access should play a role in this. They should be going on TV and bringing up the things the media refuses to. My guess is that Duers will list excuses for why they should not. I've seen it literally hundreds of times here.

I'm not defending the media- I am asking you why you think Republican owned corporations are supposed to start this conversation, and why you think elected DEMS should not or cannot.

If you are willing to wait for the media to bring this up on their own terms( assuming they discuss it at all), as opposed to having elected DEMS go on TV and frame the issue, then you are not alone. It took many people who thought that way to lose the Senate in '10 and to lose on issue after issue under Bush.

I think DUers KNOW elected DEMS will not do anything like this, and it is easier to blame the media instead of blaming them both.

[FrenchieCat]

71. Personally, I don't think it matters what Dems say......

The media will bury them for it, if they don't like it....
evidenced by some Progressive heroes like Grayson and Feingold,
who simply no longer have a voice.

You can talk a good game on what you think would make the difference,
but I don't agree that it would.

I'm not waiting for the media to do the right thing, as I have been
fighting them, and those who excuse them, while pointing their fingers
elsewhere for a very long time now.

It is actually easier to scream at Dems then it is to try and fight the media,
and you, out of anyone, should know this.

Attacking Dems is much easier than working to effect change in how the media
frames things however they want to, and whenever they want to.
All they need is enough believing what they are spouting just long enough.....
and that's easy for them, while putting out a different frame then the one
they market day in, day out, 24/7 is much more difficult.

I call those cowards who refuse to see what the media is, what the media does,
the nearly absolute power of influence that belongs 80% to the media,
and instead make up reasons to ignore them and treat them as irrelevante,
when they are nothing but relevant to every.single.fucking.issue.discussed.in.politics.

I realize that the more in denial of the media's influence,
the easier it is to believe that one can make a difference...
when one has the RW media, the Mainstream media, and the most of the Left Media
against them....the decks are then stacked, no matter how much you want to believe
otherwise for convenience sake. In fact, those who pile on on top of the various medias
have it the easiest, and the media is grateful to have them there doing their long-term
bidding.

[Dr Fate]

77. But you do think it matters whether the media says something or not?

You started out with blaming the media for not bringing it up- now you say it would do no good if DEMS bring it up either. Makes no sense to me.

I agree with almost all of what you say about the media- but can we get back to my specific points?

Can you refute a single thing I have said? You have yet to.

Grayson & Feingold have spoken out against their on camera interviews being censored by the media?

WHERE? Show me the link where either of them said this, much less made an issue out of it.

Have either of them documented and listed instances where the media refused to give them equal time in a debate or interview, upon their request? Could be. Show me.

Sure, the media distorts & lies- but that does not stop elected DEMS from exposing this and countering it when they are in front of cameras. It does not stop them from seeking out even more on camera media in this effort. If the media is "banning" elected DEMS- then I need to HEAR THE BANNED DEMS SAY SO.

In your effort to blame only the media and not elected DEMS, you are ignoring WAYS to maybe get around media bias.

It seems your only argument is that if elected DEMS dont sit back and let the media be mean to us, then they will be even MORE mean to us. That is what I call "circular excuse making." Seems like you are not only making excuses, but actually just giving up.

Okay- you win- the media gets to lie about us or gets to ignore news item, and we cant expect elected DEMS to do a single thing about it. Fine. This has been the "winning" strategy for going on 10 years now- why end it now?

Related thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9576081

[FrenchieCat]

80. I'm sorry, but negative threads about Dems and Obama

outnumber the threads that discuss how we should unite to fight the fucked up media....
it isn't even a priority! We simply shrug our shoulders,
and go back to finger pointing at our own party and our own leadership,
and pretty much accept the media for what it is, when we shouldn't...
and thereby making the pile on that they have created even higher....
to the point that voters go out and vote against their own selves,
because that is exactly what the media have been telling them to do
for an entire fucking year....and then we cozily blame the Dems, as usual.


The fact that the Dems are given very little credit for any accomplishment,
and are ordered around all of the time by all sides,
is told that they should be gansters, kick asses, pound on tables and refuse to
work with all of congress is telling because it ain't anything that anyone ever
ordered Clinton and his Democrats to do, and those Democrats including Clinton
weren't ass kickers, if you try and recall,
Because it is a fact that they were appeasers, compromisers, triangulators,
but no one seem to have given a loud ass fuck at the time,
as the Dems then were defended by all quarters of the Democratic party on a daily basis,
and agressively at that. Why do you think CNN was called the Clinton News Network?
Black folks defended Clinton too......and never ever backed down to say...hey, What the fuck,
Clinton....what's this about Welfare Reform? No, instead of hating Clinton and his Dems
for the things that they disagreed with (NAFTA, DOMA, DADT, etc., etc., etc...)
most Democrats circled that wagon and attacked Republicans foricefously.....
for attacks against the Clintons.

BUT WE DON'T DO THAT WITH OBAMA or with the current crop of Dems who, for the past 21 months,
has been held to an impossible standard of having to be literally perfect on not only some issues, but on all issues....because anyone ticked off on what they didn't like, have actually trashed Obama and many of the Dems like nobody's business day in, day out,
on every-fucking-thing that they just didn't bother to minimize.

Health care Reform = Not good enough,
Financial Reform = Not good enough,
Credit Card reform = Fuck that...where's my 10% interest?,
Student Loan reform = I'm yawning, until my loan is fucking forgiven,
DADT = Should have been done years ago, so Fuck Obama,
Saving the Auto Industry = Fuck that, I don't give a fuck unless he wouldn't have saved it,
Nuclear Arms Treaty = No big fucking deal,
20Billion from BP = It was his fault there was a leak in the first place,
Appointing Good solid Female/minority Judges = That's what he's supposed to fucking do, so no kudos,
Making Money From TARP = I hate Geithner, and everything....give me nationalism of whatever,
The Stimulus = saved the economy from a free fall, but hey.....I ain't got exactly what I need to feel comfy,
Getting out of Iraq = Fucking yawn me a river, we ain't all of the way out yet,
Reducing the Deficit = I don't give a shit! That's not putting food on my table or paying my mortage,
.....
In otherwords, it doesn't matter what they have done....
it only matters what they haven't still yet done,
and if everyone would stop kicking them to the curb long enough,
and started doing what they did for Clinton in his 8 years and Dems in general back then,
perhaps, then perhaps then we can talk about how they have fallen short,
but why do this, when the entire country is blaming them for every fucking thing at all times?

So I will continue to say that those in the base who pile on the media's frames
are the cowards, and are the weak ones. They ignore the large ass elephant in the room
every time. They complaint about every fucking thing, but don't even want to start to
consider what they should; fucking get outraged at the media....
who has us all at each other's throat, while ignoring them and generally giving them a pass
to continue doing what they do; giving a great big assist to the GOP in fucking up this country,
some more.

[Dr Fate]

82. I'm bashing DEMS by constantly BEGGING Democrats to fight Republicans? If you say so.

I see how this works- DEMS should not bring up bad things that the GOP does to DEMS unless they understand ahead of time that DEMS are not going to counter attack.

If we insist on a counter attack, well that is a form of DEM bashing itself, right? Epecially since we should know better and that fighting back is "too hard for them."

If we notice that the GOP is attacking DEMS, and we also notice that the same DEMS are not fighting back, then that is our fault. Unless we keep this observation to ourselves, we are bashing Democrats.

Got it.

Again, you did not refute a single solitary thing I said about the media or how DEMS respond to it.

I never said our public strategy should be to pile onto a media frame- I said elected DEMS should frame the debate by going on TV, etc.

I do beleive that Democrats ARE weak on this if they cant respond to it in an aggressive manner. It would just be one more example out of literally thousands, so I guess it does not really matter.

[FrenchieCat]

84. You believe that Dems are weak, and you would be right.....

However, my goal is to provide them with assistance in getting stronger,
beyond yelling directions at them from the cheap seats.

[Dr Fate]

85. I just dont see how covering for DEMS who refuse to fight is helping anyone. n/t

n/t

[FrenchieCat]

87. But I see how criticizing them all of the time

helps the opposition a whole lot.

[Dr Fate]

91. How does it help the oppositon if I BEG DEMS to FIGHT conservatives?

How does it help the oppositon if I BEG DEMS to FIGHT and EXPOSE media bias as opposed to just falling back on media bias every time we need an excuse for failure?

I get that you KNOW that they WILL NOT fight conservatives and their media in many instances, and therefore pointing out such instances exposes them as "weak" to their own base. I get that part and why it annoys you, but we cant help but notice these things, and expecting us to ignore it is not a viable strategy.

I believe a better long-term strategy would be to advocate for more fighting DEMS, as opposed to getting mad at the people who are already doing so.

[kiranon]

69. Cancel the meeting because of something else more important to the country.

Leave the Republicans out in the cold. Give them enough rope to make so many mistakes that no one, not even a tea bagger, will fail to see how the Republicans fail at everything they try that isn't tactics or saying "No." They have nothing to offer anyone but the every rich and I do not think the tea baggers are the very rich. Then wait until the Republicans ask for a meeting. This President is too much into bipartisanship which, as far as I can tell, means one up man ship - he gives in they take advantage of it.

[craigmatic]

70. They clearly don't respect him and this shows that they will do anything they can to spite him.

He might as well veto anything they try to push for.

[VMI Dem]

96. They view him as weak.

Simple as that.

[kjackson227]

97. The Republicans are doing everything in their power...

to delegitimize this president. It's their way of "putting him in his place" so to speak. But, when they disrespect him, they're disrespecting us, also.

[RBInMaine]

100. So you think he thinks about trying to be loved by R's? NUTTY suggestion.

[tledford]

101. It doesn't apply if the President is black.

Where have you been?

[Old Troop]

104. I think they did it to embarrass him, but I'm a little concerned by

people's feeling that he is somehow above the other members of government. He is actually just the chief of one co-equal branch of our government. How would he insist on the meeting? Have the Federal Protective Service forcibly bring them to the White House?

[Autumn]

105. I don't understand the surprise and outrage over this.

Of course they show him no respect. They are republicans and he is a Democratic President, that's what they fucking do. He should have intimate dinners at the White House with Democrats, not fucking republicans. Maybe then we would get more done that our side wants done. Has no one paid attention for the last 20 years or so.