I'm going to break my two week silence and say this: If we go into 2012 like this, we are fucked.

[Liberal Veteran]

And not just for 4 years, but the remainder of our lives for those of us in our middle years and older.

I'm not even sure where the rifts in our party began (if DU is even representative of our party, which is debatable). As near as I can tell, the only thing holding us together was our utter disdain and contempt for the previous occupant of the White House.

I guess it should have been obvious during the primaries that politics has turned more about team jersey than the actual ideals. There wasn't really (and still isn't) a hair's breadth of difference between the positions and failings of the candidates that were most likely to win the nomination of our party.

I rather imagine if the positions were reversed now, we'd be in the same exact place we are right now: So busy tearing each other apart with justifications, lamentations, and probably more than a bit of schadenfreude that we never notice that the real threat until it is too damned late.

It is pretty easy to see how we got to this place though. Some of us turned on each other in pique. Some set their expectations so high, they were doomed to be disappointed and and disillusioned. Some of us thought we were done fighting went back to making house or whatever.

Whatever the reason, that groundswell we rode to victory in 2008 got flushed down the proverbial toilet while the country covered itself in shit. The end result is we ended up losing the House to a bunch of nutjobs.

Like it or not, we are stuck with those nutjobs for the duration.

In the meantime, it behooves us to get our act together.

To the side that wants to play chicken with a bunch of racist teabaggers: Playing chicken with crazy people is a good way to learn what you look like as roadkill.
To the side that wants to pretend all is well: Bury your head in the sand long enough and suffocate.
To the side that that says better to take our ball and go home rather than accept smaller victories: You lose by default.
To the side that constantly moves the goalpost around: While you are busy changing the rules, the other side is kicking our asses.
There are too many sides and metaphors to continue.

At this point, I am not willing to throw in the towel. I am not willing to pretend we can have a "do-over".

Honestly, though, it seems we are spending more time fighting each other than our real opponents.

I'm terribly afraid if we continue on this path, we will learn the true meaning of "pyrrhic victory".

(edited to add the word "began" after "party"....stupid incomplete sentence)

[RKP5637]

1. Agree, D's argue too much among themselves and the focal point gets

fractured. Meanwhile, the opposition advances.

[stklurker]

12. spot on. nt

the problem is when we win its even worse, because then we fracture even more.. 2008 was a shining example. And like a dumb dog we dont learn... look at what happened in here, last week it was whatever happens we cannot give up entitlements and do WHATEVER to raise the debt limit before we go into oblivion. Now its slam bash and quote EVERY FREAKING MSM source we can find... that we will turn around and blast if it doesnt say what we want it to. I am almost more disgusted with the base than I am the leadership. To those who want Obama primaried.. fine, do it and see where it gets us... see if the entitlements stay around then... Be careful what you wish for

[Solomon]

31. That's where I'm at. I'm almost wishing the whiners here could

get what they're asking for except it would be sheer hell for the rest of us.

[MADem]

41. I wonder how many of these whiners are true believers, and how many are

shit-stirrers, egged on by idiots from the GOP who are just now figuring out how this internets-thang works!

I never thought Democrats were stupid. Every now and again, though, I find some shit here that makes me wonder where some of these folks got their education! GOP Clown College, maybe?

[Snoutport]

45. +1

[SugarShack]

No we are fighting a dem prez who is fighting to make these cuts. that's the reality

[EFerrari]

2. ^The tone is set from the top. n /t

[RKP5637]

4. Good point! IMO, basically, there is not enough "glue" at the top to hold the

party together with focused causes, so it splinters from the bottom up.

[Liberal Veteran]

5. To me, that is more a rationalization for giving up.

One of the most ironic things I have noticed in the last decade is the same voices criticizing the right wing slant that is result of media consolidation are the same voices breathlessly repeating every utterance from the media giants from opinion to conjecture to one-sided reporting.

In effect, those voices become part of the public mindset with our willing participation in becoming repeater stations for big media.

Edited to add: Meaning we are helping set that tone by letting the media conglomerates lead us around by the nose.

[Poll_Blind]

7. +1

PB

[CakeGrrl]

55. The tone HAS been set from the top: You're just choosing not to listen.

Either shit or get off the pot if you want "the top" to be something different.

Either get a coalition together that actually engages a primary challenger who actually WANTS to challenge, or use the excuse that "the top" hasn't given you enough reason to go to the polls and take whatever the voters who don't sit it out muster up for you.

[BeFree]

3. We are

After at least two stolen elections, lies about WMD and real torture going unprosecuted, we are fucked.

The people need to get their heads out of the sand. But I don't see it ever happening. They like getting fucked is all I can figure.

Without safe and sound and verifiable elections, there really is no use in doing a damn thing.

[Michigan-Arizona]

6. +1000

[JDPriestly]

8. One man, just one man, is responsible for splitting the Democratic Party,

and his name is Barack Obama.

I've never seen such a weak Democrat as Barack Obama, and I've been watching pretty carefully since Harry Truman.

[Liberal Veteran]

11. If true (and I don't agree with you, btw), then what have you done to make things better?.

How are you helping Barack Obama be a better leader or mitigate the problem you've identified? By telling us how he's hopeless and the worst ever?

I fail to see how that is going to strengthen our position.

[JDPriestly]

13. I have written him e-mails, but given up because he never

pays any attention to anything from liberals.

I am fortunate enough to have a really good Democratic representative in the House, and I support him in every way.

I am a member of my local Democratic Club and just joined the Rebuild the American Dream movement sponsored in part by Move-On.

So I am trying to change things without expecting anything from Obama.

I have a lot of liberal friends and live in a very liberal community. My neighbors pretty much agree with 100%.

[readmoreoften]

15. Your notion of gently reforming Obama are based on fundamental assumptions

that are quite different than mine or, I'm guessing, JDs. To "help Obama be a better leader" assumes that he cares about the platforms and positions we do. He doesn't. I happen to think he is an excellent leader. He's great at forcing the congressional Dems to cut rotten deals with his Republican friends. He's not some misguided rookie. He is not the president of the American people, he is a representative for bankers and CEOs and global conglomerates. You cannot reform such man. You can only fight him so that your world may be a little better place. The Tea Party is not the obstacle. The obstacle is that the Democrats (notwithstanding some congresspersons) have nothing to distinguish them from Republicans.

How can we both fight Republicans and be indistinguishable from them? The fact that there are even arguments about "who won this bill" is telling.

[Number23]

19. God, when people say "one man (Obama) is responsible for the split in the Dem party"

they may as well be standing outside of a liquor store on a soapbox with a sign heralding the end of days screaming and spitting on unfortunate passersby.

Every single criticism hurled at Obama from the "left" has been hurled at every single Dem president. Clinton (to his immense credit) gave back as good as he got. Carter was "redeemed" by his great works after he left office. Even FDR, the Dem president so many here seem to have pornographic dreams about, was criticized and hounded by the "left." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_critics_of_the_New_Deal#From_the_Left

"In fact, it's pretty remarkable how closely the attacks Roosevelt experienced from his left echo the attacks that liberals make against Obama today. There was criticism of Roosevelt for being too close to Wall Street, criticism of the New Deal's pragmatism and non-ideological approach, criticism of the New Deal for not going nearly far enough, criticism of the New Deal and Roosevelt as preferring conservatism to liberalism, and so on." http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/08/11/891631/-UPDATED:-Liberal-Criticism-of-Franklin-Roosevelt-and-The-New-Deal

Ain't nothing new here.

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[GeorgeGist]

25. Obama should resign.

[WinkyDink]

30. I VERY SERIOUSLY doubt that Barack Obama is a tabula rasa who would be influenced by US!!!!!

[readmoreoften]

14. One man and a few neoliberal think tanks. And Republicans who needed a new home

after their right wing went crazy.

[RegieRocker]

21. Disagree. Congress played a much bigger part.

[CakeGrrl]

56. Yeah, "weak" enough finally do what Clinton and Bush II couldn't

when it came to Osama bin Laden.

Meh to all the cries of 'weakness'.

[Leopolds Ghost]

9. Smaller victories? What chu talkin' about?

Do you regard FISA reform (immunity from prosecution for warrantless wiretapping by private corporations, no different than what Murdoch is doing) a "smaller victory?" Obama voted for that.

Do you regard individual retirement accounts for Social Security, or individual mandate for private health insurance, as a "smaller victory"? Romney in Massachusetts led the way on those issues and now Obama is doing his Nixon goes to China thing on that, and party activists are trying to sell the lie that it is a progressive policy and only right wingers were ever against it, even though Romney pioneered it.

Do you regard massive annual cuts to discretionary spending as a "smaller victory"? How about the end of antitrust suits, or approval of further consolidation of the telecom industry (the ones who have contracts to wiretap all Americans for the federal government?)

Is "victory" in Iraq and a permanent troop presence there a "smaller victory"? How about "victory" in Afghanistan now that we know the notion Bin Laden was there is a lie?

[Liberal Veteran]

10. I won't allow myself to demoralized into paralysis or running away.

Constant bickering is going to destroy us.

If you believe internecine warfare is going to win the day for your idealism, have at it, but do not ask me to participate in that tactic.

In short, there is a light year between criticism and nihilism.

[readmoreoften]

16. I'm not a nihilist at all and I'm not demoralized.

I have great faith that either the Dems will change and stand for something or they'll cease to exist as a party. From there on I see the possibilities for a new opposition party that is strong enough to beat the Republicans. Moving further to the left, strongly and confidently is the only way to beat the right.

[MADem]

17. DU is not representative of the Democratic Party.

Some segments are so far to the left they come out on the far right. They are the ones doing the bulk of the Obama bashing, and posting the dire predictions about any political process (and then scurrying off for a bit when their predictions don't bear any of the desired bitter fruit).

Underrepresented here in a big way are the conservative Democrats, while the middle-of-the-roader, old-school 'liberals' and split the diff social liberal/fiscal conservative types also have anemic representation, though somewhat better than the conservative Dems.

This website is a very tiny fraction of the party in terms of both numbers and perspective (which is a comfort, actually). The discussion here used to be very vibrant with more people from all corners of the tent; now, not so much. If this were a truly representative group, we'd hear from more geezers--and I mean the seventy five and up crowd, who vote reliably at every election--local, state and federal. The few that turn up get turned off by some of the rudeness. It's a pity.

[Major Hogwash]

22. So what? Neither is Obama.

He's some unknown entity, you never know what the fuck he's going to do.
One day he sounds like FDR, the next day he sounds like Reagan.

[MADem]

27. One person could never be representative of the Democratic Party,

unless they were schizophrenic. We're not "the Borg."

Some people here seem to want that from Obama, though.

Like it or not, he's got to be President of all the people, not just the far left people.

[Major Hogwash]

28. FDR, Truman, JFK were ALL very good representatives of the Democratic party.

Obama, not so much.

[WonderGrunion]

29. Internment, Nuking Japan & The Bay of Pigs are good representatives

of the Democratic Party? So far, President Obama has done nothing as bad as any of those things. The Extreme Left of their eras hated them as much as you hate Obama.

[robcon]

32. I agree. No democrat pleases all Democrats.

n/t

[Major Hogwash]

34. FDR was elected President 4 times.

FDR was such a good representative of the Democratic party that as soon as they could, Republicans passed a Constitutional amendment preventing any Democrat from ever serving more than 2 terms again.

The Republicans hate FDR with a passion.
They referred to WWII as "Roosevelt's War."

[Major Hogwash]

33. You would be speaking German right now if it were not for FDR.

Or Japanese if it were not for Truman.
The Bay of Pigs was a plan drawn up by the CIA under Eisenhower.
Lame attempt to smear all of the decent Democratic Presidents we ever had.
History is replete with tails of heroism from the 40s, 50s, and 60s.

I don't hate Obama.
I'm not even from the fringe left, WonderGrunion.

:rofl:

[MADem]

36. So....what you're saying is Obama should be MORE AUTHORITARIAN, not less?

Because that's what FDR and Truman were.

And don't even TRY to blame Ike for the BOP. Kennedy, rest his soul, had the ability to say Fuck NO--Shut It Down. He admitted that, he acknowledged his personal screw-up--why can't you?

No one is saying that FDR, Truman and JFK weren't "decent Democrats." But the bottom line is, if they are "decent" then Obama is a frigging saint by comparison. He is far less "imperial" than Bush or Reagan--and they learned that skill from ...wait for it...FDR, Truman and JFK.

[Major Hogwash]

43. You're extrapolating out into the Twilight Zone now.

FDR was elected 4 times, and was the best President this country ever had!!!!!

Truman finished WWII with less loss of life by using the atomic bomb.

JFK admitted he should have stopped the CIA's Bay of Pigs operation and went on tv and acknowledged that it was a mistake and he "owned" it.

[MADem]

44. No, I'm not. FDR created the "Imperial Presidency." Read your history.

We're talking about use/abuse of Presidential power, here, not whether or not the abuse happened to be a good thing. FDR and Truman circumvented Congress on many, many occasions, emboldening every President since to attempt to seize more power.

Again--read your history, not from the perspective of "events," but from the perspective of shifting power. This guy gives a respectable accounting of the issue: http://spot.colorado.edu/~chernus/NewspaperColumns/TheBushAdministration/ImperialPresidency.htm

[Major Hogwash]

47. Yes, you're wrong AGAIN!!! FDR was a great example of a Democratic President.

You have been talking about nada!!

[Major Hogwash]

48. You are so wrong, you're the wrongest person at DU I have ever seen!!

Wrong doesn't even begin to describe you, you are so wrong.
You are so wrong, you've set a new record for being wrong.
You have been so wrong for so long that they're going to name a highway that was built wrong after you!

[Name removed]

53. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

58. Deleted message

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

[MADem]

60. +1000!!! NT

[Major Hogwash]

61. I happen to like this topic.

The fact that Liberal Veteran said that he was going to break his silence of 2 weeks was notable to me.

Telling a veteran to "take your meds" is one of the most destructive comments people can make to a veteran.
Fortunately, I'm not on medication.

[Name removed]

62. Deleted message

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

[WinkyDink]

51. Hey, if I PM you my address, will you send me your Social "FDR" Security checks?

[MADem]

52. Sure, I'll send you every check I will get for the next year, how's that? nt

[MADem]

35. You're kidding, right?

Hello? Say WHAT?

FDR was the guy who INVENTED the "Imperial Presidency." His template for saying "Fuck You" (court packing, for example? And that was just the starter!) was used by every single president, save maybe Carter, who came after him...and even Carter did the DESERT ONE messs.

He was the king of the "Forgiveness is easier to obtain than permission" school of thought. If Obama did one one-hundredth of the crap that FDR pulled, y'all'd be screaming.

Truman was the guy who unilaterally dropped nuclear weapons on Japan. FWIW, I am one of the people who doesn't argue with his reasoning, but he didn't wring his hands and ask the Congress or the "people" if it was "OK"--he just fucking did it. If Obama tosses a few bombs at Qaddafi's troops in complete concordance with a Congressionally approved NATO treaty, people act like he's 'gone off the reservation' and is abusing power like a maniac....never mind that treaties trump everything, to include War Powers and all that other happy crap.

I won't even start with the frigging Bay of Pigs and JFK, because I think you need to go back to the history books.

By your logic, if FDR, Truman, and JFK were "good representatives" of the Democratic Party, Obama is a GREAT one.

Just sayin....

[Major Hogwash]

42. You don't know what you're talking about.

And I doubt if you ever did.

FDR saved this country from idiots who thought they could prolong the pain and the suffering of the poor.

I don't know how old you are or what gender you are because you didn't even fill that info in your profile here at the DU.

[MADem]

46. No, you don't, and with every post, you make that more obvious,

in a rather childish and obtuse way.

Keep missing the point, which has to do with usurpation of power by the executive branch of government. To people who care about this country, separation of powers is an important and meaningful concept.

[Major Hogwash]

49. No, I'm not kidding, you're wrong --- FDR is a GREAT example of a DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENT

I hope you can read that, this time.

[MADem]

50. Repeating it in ALL CAPS does not make it true. Your commentary is pure hogwash. NT

[Major Hogwash]

54. Even freepers know that FDR is a GREAT example of a DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENT.

So, you have nothing left to say about it.

[2banon]

39. Lol! We Who Are Fighting for our SS and Medicaid are Far Left People

I love it..

[MADem]

40. Oh please, how are you "fighting?" You're starting petty BS on DU!

Ooooh, fight, fight, fight!!

Get back to me when you actually lose your SS and Medicaid.

[Number23]

18. Kicked and rec'd! Well said, dammit!

I love your fire!

To the side that wants to play chicken with a bunch of racist teabaggers: Playing chicken with crazy people is a good way to learn what you look like as roadkill.
To the side that wants to pretend all is well: Bury your head in the sand long enough and suffocate.
To the side that that says better to take our ball and go home rather than accept smaller victories: You lose by default.
To the side that constantly moves the goalpost around: While you are busy changing the rules, the other side is kicking our asses.


I like all four of your scenarios, but the bolded one I think is most true.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

23. On the other hand, the good news ...

the Republican party is showing cracks, no longer the disciplined lockstep bloc they were a few years ago.

2012 should be interesting.

:hi:

[LaydeeBug]

24. Oh *I* know where it started...LET IT STINK!

so they can see what their shortsightedness has done.

And lest you forget it was that way when there were less than above board practices with caucuses and our alternative would not have been vice president Palin.

LET IT STINK!

[Bluerthanblue]

26. another rec'd for someone with the guts

to point out the truth.

[TheKentuckian]

37. If I want to mindlessly support "my team" I turn on a game. My opposition is an ideology not

a letter next to a name.

If I supported stupid economics, shitting on civil liberties, imperialism for resource acquisition to enrich multinationals, and rolling over for corporate rule then I would have just become a Republican decades ago.

[lonestarnot]

38. I hate to break it to you but we are fucked no matter how we get into 2012.

[krabigirl]

57. eh, I will vote my conscience. If a candidate sucks, I don't vote for him or her.

I don't give a crap about the letter next to a name. they all are pretty much the same, barring a few.

[trayfoot]

59. I absolutely AGREE!

It is so sad that I will be spending my so-called "golden years" watching my country deteriorate before my very eyes!

[IPTF2]

63. I SEE THEIR PLAN

The plan the repugs have all of them included along with some blue dog DINO's is to bring the government down to its knees before the next election. This will be done so they can get a new type of Leader elected on the likes of Mussolini or the other fascist pig der fuhrer you know who, who will miraculously create jobs and ramp up manufacturing and get us out of the recession/depression as they will have a majority in the courts the congress etc. History does repeat itself that"s what's going on. Open your eyes.