How is voting for someone who votes with the Republicans and agrees with the Republicans

[readmoreoften]

a form of fighting the Republicans? Wouldn't creating a bold opposition be the appropriate route for fighting opponents?

[EFerrari]

1. Whose side are you on?

lol

[fasttense]

2. Yes, boy that was easy. Next question.n/t

[Autumn]

3. First part, it isn't. Second part. that's the only

way to do it.

[polichick]

4. Voters want bipartisanship no matter what the cost.

:sarcasm:

[Drale]

5. Ok its fine to have high morals and stuff but the reality of the situation is

that if real Repukes are allowed to take power, we are fucked, there are no if, ands or buts about it. We have to focus on getting Obama reelected and giving him a strong super majority in both houses in Congress. If you want a Republican president, then by all means don't for the President and call for a primary challenger, but when you get put in a camp for being a liberal by the Repukes don't come crying to me, because at the point I'm done.

[CleanGreenFuture]

8. Agreed, if the cons win they will drive it like they stole it, and they will steal it all knowing

it's their last chance.

And when they do, there will be war in the streets.

[Tippy]

12. War in the streets....Been thinking the same thing since we elected Obama

[readmoreoften]

9. I'm not talking "high morals". I'm talking about pragmatic strategy.

There is nothing pragmatic about voting for people who agree with Republicans or vote with Republicans.

[HereSince1628]

6. I'm with others who believe the fight for the course of the party

is a fight that must be fought by party insiders.

Bold opposition must come from the outside...that seems more likely to divide voters who oppose the republicans than it is to provide a majority shift.

Achieving signifance INSIDE the party is a shorter path and one with a better liklihood of a good outcome.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

7. I don't know. I swear to you I don't know. I just live upset these days. nt

[Starry Messenger]

10. Because we're supposed to count the possibility of good intentions as a win.

In other words, our system is bankrupt and the excuses are getting flimsier and more hostile, like the end of all bad relationships.

[Davis_X_Machina]

11. There are three parties in congress...

....but only two labels. People on the left seem to have confused the parties with the labels.

We have:

Democrats who are Democrats,
Democrats who are Republicans.
Republicans who are Republicans.

(There used to be quite a few Republicans who are Democrats when I was a lad, but they’re extinct.)

Coalition, or permanent minority, your call.

[readmoreoften]

13. I see no evidence that the minority be "permanent". After one or two election cycles the

"throw the bums out" process would inevitably occur and the minority would become he majority. The idea that we would be in a permanent, openly one Party state and that that one party would be free-marketers seems highly unlikely to me.

[Davis_X_Machina]

15. It's permanent.Self-idenfitication numbers...

...for 'liberal' (i.e. Democrats who are Democrats) are remarkably stable -- have bounced around 20% for the last two decades, during which times the bums have been thrown out, and crept back in a couple-three times already. You will always need the Democrats who are Republicans to do anything except strike poses and even then what initiatives you do follow through on will be watered down, and fewer in number.

In the old days, on issues like the environment, or education, you could get a Republican-who's-a-Democrat --a Hatfield, or a Jeffords, or an Ed Brooke, or a Jacob Javits, or a Bill Cohen -- on board issue-by-issue. Now you don't have them.

There's only one pond left to fish in.

[readmoreoften]

16. I'm certain the Whigs thought their numbers looked consistent.

The American people have never seen a strong Democratic party united around economic populism. If the party changed, support would change. Especially on economic populist lines.

[Davis_X_Machina]

19. If there was a need for one, it would be out there already.

Slavery came and went, but rich and poor were with us then, and with us now. An 'out' redistributionist party would have been equally welcome in the Panic of 1873, the 30's, and now. Sometimes we see some signs of it, sometimes not. There are other factors in play -- religion, region, race.

[sofa king]

14. Because your premise is bullshit.

The debt plan that was passed was the President's plan which was submitted to Congress back in March, grown larger in scale during "negotiations" with the Republicans, who got nothing, and credit for the plan was craftily shifted over to the Republican camp so that they take the electoral blame for the tough decisions that had to be made. Department of Defense cuts grew 25% in "negotiations," structured in such a way that if just a few Democrats refuse to cooperate in the "super-committee," those cuts will go into effect without a single Democratic vote to cut defense spending, which is usually the kiss of death for us.

So we pretend we lost now, they actually lose for real in 2012, and then we actually get to try to fix this jalopy we've been left with.

That's why we voted "with the Republicans," because we fucked 'em sideways while doing it.

[readmoreoften]

17. Yes, the debt deal was brilliant strategizing and a multidimensional chess move.

We know, we know.

[sofa king]

20. Clearly, you don't know.

I just spelled it out for you and all you've got is the Powerline dodge. Perhaps you should ask them what your next move should be.

[readmoreoften]

26. If silly make-believe re-inventions of historical events are "spelling it out" then indeed you did.

[sofa king]

30. Do tell....

Please explain to me, in detail, what parts of what I told you are silly, what parts are make-believe, and what part of it is history.

See if you can do that in a sarcastic and dismissive way that betrays your total lack of understanding and unwillingness to learn, because that's been working quite well for you so far.

[leeroysphitz]

18. You just don't understand nuance...

Like saying, one day, that you will not sign a healthcare bill that doesn't include a public option and then, on another day signing a healthcare bill that doesn't include a public option.
Now THAT is what you call a nuanced position.

But don't fret if you can't understand. Little folk like us aren't required to understand. We are simply expected to vote dutifuly and cheer when the sign lights up...

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

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

[leftstreet]

22. ************OBAMA BASHES HIS BASE GIVES REPUBLICANS A PASS***************

[readmoreoften]

24. Yes, and by pointing out how Obama helps Repubs you have mysteriously helped Repubs.

Because that's a conclusion a reasonable person would make.

[QC]

25. ************************ OBAMA GIVES THE REPUBLICANS EVERYTHING THEY WANT!!! ***********************

[joshcryer]

27. Pretty much. This is why we lose. Every time.

[Skittles]

29. ********************BULL FUCKING SHIT**********************

we know repukes are to blame, but we are SICK of our president bending over backwards to ACCOMMODATE THEM

[mmonk]

23. You're using logic. This is politics. They usually don't meet.

[dawg]

28. The primaries are the place to settle these fights.

We need to be unified come November.

I would vote for almost any prominent Dem over the President in a primary election, but President Obama is much preferable to any Republican.