Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Whether Or Not to Vote for Obama – Two Sides of the Question

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 Donate to DU
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-19-12 04:43 PM
Original message
Whether Or Not to Vote for Obama – Two Sides of the Question
In 2008 I worked as a volunteer in Barack Obama’s Presidential campaign, I donated to it, and I wrote articles in his support, such as this one, in which I compared him favorably to his Republican opponent.

After four years of disappointment, it will be much more difficult to demonstrate much support for him in the coming election. I would like here to discuss both sides of the question of whether or not to vote for him. I think that both sides of the question are important to consider – not only for liberals/progressives, but for all Americans.

First I will say that I have not yet decided whether I would vote for him if I lived in a swing state. But Maryland, where I live, is predicted by Nate Silver to go for Obama with a 99.8% probability. If he needs my vote to carry Maryland, the election will be a massacre in Romney’s favor. So it’s safe for me to cast a protest vote for another candidate here. I hope Obama wins – or more accurately, I hope that Mitt Romney loses. But voting for Obama would be very difficult for me this time around.

I’ll start with reasons to vote for him:


REASONS TO VOTE FOR OBAMA IN 2012

An article appearing in The Nation, by Katrina vanden Heuvel, its editor and publisher, and Robert Borosage, “A Politics for the 99 Percent”, provides reasons to vote for Obama in the 2012 Presidential election. I agree with the vast majority of what Katrina vanden Heuvel and her magazine have to say, and this article is no exception.

While advocating that we vote for Obama, the authors simultaneously note his flaws and the importance of our having to push him to do the right thing. Near the beginning of the article, after noting the need to elect Obama over Romney, they say:

Yet President Obama’s agenda is far removed from what is needed to meet the challenges this country faces. Because of this, we believe progressives must expand the limits of the current debate, even as they rally against the threat posed by a Republican victory.

On the dangerous consequences of a Romney victory, they note, among other things:

 Repeal of the modest reforms enacted to police corporations
 Budget cuts that would gut almost all domestic functions of the government (education, child nutrition, environmental protection)
 An end to Medicare and Medicaid as we know them
 More increases in military spending and a more bellicose foreign policy
 More tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy
 More constriction of voting rights
 Escalation of the offensive against labor and workers’ rights

In summary, “If Romney wins we will spend four years fighting to limit the damage he will inflict on the nation”.

The authors note that Obama has criticized the extremes of the far right, and they go on to describe how the extreme economic agenda of the Republican Party is responsible for the woeful state in which we find our economy today. They don’t much discuss Obama’s role or non-role in facilitating our economic woes, but they do tacitly acknowledge that he could and should have done more to combat the right-wing agenda, by concluding about Obama with respect to our economy:

He will offer no transformational agenda, no new foundation for an economy that works for working people, no plan for reviving the middle class. And no matter who wins, only sustained popular pressure will forestall a debilitating “grand bargain” that will further undermine the middle class and the poor.

Most important, the authors discuss the debate over the relative importance of electoral politics vs. movement politics, noting that that is a false dichotomy. Dismissing the argument that “both parties are so corrupted and compromised that energy should be focused {solely} on building independent movements and protests”, the authors conclude (correctly in my opinion) that we need both movement politics and electoral politics. What they seem to be saying is that, in the absence of a president who will actually support liberal/progressive reforms, at least we need one who won’t crush them to death. And at the same time, we need to push a reluctant president to support the reforms that our country so desperately needs:

Successful movements build their own narrative, mobilizing activists around a cause and forcing politicians seeking a majority to change their calculations. In 2012 progressives have little choice but to do both: to take the election seriously while continuing to organize independent movements and challenge the limits of the debate.

Yet at the same time, they caution us of the dangers of giving Democrats our unqualified support:

Committing to electoral politics need not mean – cannot mean – simply folding into an existing campaign and trumpeting a politician’s exaggerated promises. Progressives should see elections as an opportunity to identify champions, drive issues into the debate and hold politicians in both parties accountable. This requires building an infrastructure independent of the Democratic Party, and a movement willing to challenge compromised incumbents… Even without primary challenges, movements can raise the public’s awareness of progressive issues and force politicians to adopt positions they might otherwise avoid… Progressives should use the election to hone our narrative on how we got into this mess and how we can get out of it.

The authors comment on Obama’s lack of leadership as a means of arguing that ‘we the people’ need to take matters into our own hands:

With Romney and the Republicans championing a return to the policies that have devastated the middle class, the election also offers an opportunity to overcome what has been the most baffling of Obama’s failures: his unwillingness to “re-litigate the past,” to educate Americans about the bankrupt ideas and policies that served the 1 percent as they failed the country. It is a measure of that stunning default that after the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, the right could be revived electorally without being forced to rethink its assumptions or agenda, and without having to change even a comma of its creed.

They end by summarizing what we must now do:

Progressives must therefore be willing to expose the corruption and compromises of both (emphasis mine) parties. This requires not only detailing the threat posed by the right but honesty about the limits of the current choice… Sustained efforts to mobilize and drive issues into the debate, while using nonviolence and direct action to defend people in peril, are vital. At the same time, progressives can champion candidates who will fight to transform the Democratic Party into an instrument of the 99 percent… It will require new ideas, new ways of organizing, new strategies… Now we must reach out, teach, engage and mobilize millions of Americans. We must provide them with a sense of hope, a story of possibility, and enlist them to create change. It won’t be easy. But it never is.


PROBLEMS I HAVE IN SUPPORTING OBAMA

The problems I have in supporting Obama’s candidacy need not be taken as contradicting what Katrina vanden Huevel and Robert Borosage wrote in “A Politics of the 99 Percent,” discussed above. They themselves noted many of the failings of the Obama presidency.

As I noted in the first paragraph of this post, in 2008 I wrote an article for DU comparing Obama favorably to McCain. But on many of the most important issues, Obama’s campaign rhetoric didn’t come very close to matching his performance in office. Here I’d like to briefly consider six important issues that make that point: Torture, climate change, economic issues, health care, the “War on Terror”, and Obama’s treatment of whistleblowers.


Torture

Obama had been universally and strongly against torture. President Obama does deserve credit for banning torture on the second day of his presidency. However, as Alain Nairn explained in “The Torture Ban that Doesn’t Ban Torture”:

What the Obama dictum ostensibly knocks off is that small percentage of torture now done by Americans while retaining the overwhelming bulk of the system’s torture, which is done by foreigners under US patronage. Obama could stop backing foreign forces that torture, but he has chosen not to do so. His Executive Order instead merely pertains to treatment of “an individual in the custody or under the effective control of an officer, employee, or other agent of the United States Government…”, which means that it doesn’t even prohibit direct torture by Americans outside environments of “armed conflict,” which is where much torture happens anyway since many repressive regimes aren’t in armed conflict.


Climate change

During the 2008 campaign, candidate Obama emphasized the need to combat global warming, saying “I don't believe that climate change is just an issue that's convenient to bring up during a campaign. I believe it's one of the greatest moral challenges of our generation.”

But as president he did very little to address climate change.

It was widely recognized by climate scientists prior to the 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference of December 7-18 in Copenhagen, commonly known as the Copenhagen Summit, that failure would likely portend world-wide disaster. An article in Scientific American by Douglass Fischer, titled “What Would Failure at Copenhagen Mean for Climate Change”, written a month prior to the Summit, summed up the stakes:

Climate experts, scientists and negotiators say that, absent international agreement, the children and grandchildren of those living today will negotiate a world where planetary geo-engineering is a part of daily life, sea-walls defend coastal cities, the world's poor are hammered by drought, floods and famine and our planet is heading toward conditions unseen for the last 100 million years…

The accord that the 30 leading countries agreed upon dropped the goal of 80% greenhouse gas reduction by 2050, despite the fact that our best climate scientists said greenhouse gas emissions must be cut 80% from 1990 levels by 2050 to avoid catastrophe. It retained a (non-binding) commitment to reducing global temperatures by 2050, but contained no concrete plans for achieving that goal. Consequently:

Many countries almost immediately tore to shreds the compromise plan that the group of 30 countries presented in the main hall. Those countries that could face destruction as a result of climate change, in particular, could not see any solutions in it. Now we are faced with the threat of an impasse in global climate politics. And the consequences of this holdup will primarily be felt by the poorest of the poor. Experts anticipate that they will be subjected to storms and flooding stronger than ever before. Their crops will wither. Melting glaciers might deprive several million people of their water supplies and deprive them of their livelihoods.

Later, the United States committed to a 4% reduction in greenhouse gas emission from 1990 levels by 2020 – a puny and laughable gesture compared to 80% reduction by 2050 that climate scientists say is necessary in order to avoid catastrophe.

An article in the Guardian by Suzanne Goldenberg, titled “Barack Obama’s Speech Disappoints and Fuels Frustration at Copenhagen”, summarized the disappointment over the lack of U.S. leadership felt by much of the world

Barack Obama stepped into the chaotic final hours of the Copenhagen summit today saying he was convinced the world could act "boldly and decisively" on climate change. But his speech offered no indication America was ready to embrace bold measures, after world leaders had been working desperately against the clock to try to paper over an agreement to prevent two years of wasted effort from ending in total collapse.


Economic issues

Obama’s tax plan was in many ways the opposite of McCain’s. Most important, it would have reversed the Bush tax cuts for the rich. In addition to his tax proposals, Obama had an extensive economic plan, which included: fighting for “fair trade” instead of “free trade”, as manifested by NAFTA; job creation; restoring workers’ rights to unionize; the creation of a universal 10% mortgage credit to give relief to homeowners; a crackdown on mortgage company abuses; and a crackdown on predatory lending policies.

But far from reversing the Bush tax cuts, Obama waited until they were about to expire, and then he castigated progressive Democrats for not submitting to Republican blackmail to hold extension of unemployment benefits to the unemployed hostage to tax cuts for the rich. The Bush tax cuts for the wealthy are still in effect today.

So far job creation has been negative during the Obama administration – representing the worst job creation record since Herbert Hoover (with the possible exception of the two Bush presidencies, depending on when one starts counting from). One thing that could be said in Obama’s defense is that he inherited a nation in economic crisis. That is true, but so did FDR. Yet the philosophy and actions of the two administrations have been very different. In fact, Obama’s philosophy leans towards the Republican side of the spectrum, as he made clear in a statement:

See, I’ve never believed that government has all the answers to our problems. I’ve never believed that government’s role is to create jobs or prosperity. I believe it’s the drive and the ingenuity of our entrepreneurs, our small businesses; the skill and dedication of our workers… that’s made us the wealthiest nation on Earth. I believe it’s the private sector that must be the main engine for our recovery. I believe government should be lean; government should be efficient.

He bragged about us being “the wealthiest nation on Earth” during the midst of an economic crisis that was driving millions of Americans into poverty? Worse than that, his actions have not been commensurate with the magnitude of the crisis: Though our best economists recommended a much stronger stimulus package, he decided instead to go with the advice of his much more conservative economic advisors; his solution to the home foreclosure crisis was “Making Home Affordable”, a program that William Kuttner explains in his book, “A Presidency in Peril”, was orders of magnitude more favorable to banks than to homeowners; his continuation of the Bush bailout of Wall Street without demanding much fiscal reform from Wall Street failed to improve our financial situation; and in his 2010 State of the Union message he indicated that deficit reduction would be a priority over stimulation of a stagnant economy. Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman’s response was scathing in his criticism of that:

A spending freeze? That’s the brilliant response of the Obama team… It’s appalling on every level. It’s bad economics, depressing demand when the economy is still suffering from mass unemployment… And it’s a betrayal of everything Obama’s supporters thought they were working for. Just like that, Obama has embraced and validated the Republican world-view.

And what happened to the Employee Free Choice Act or the fair trade he claimed to support? He simply didn’t pursue it.


Health Care

Obama offered a national health care plan to all Americans to buy affordable (through government subsidies) health care coverage that is “similar to the plan available to members of Congress.” This plan would have substantially changed our current private for-profit insurance company domination of the market by making available to everyone a Medicare-like, government sponsored program as an alternative.

The plan that Obama eventually offered the American people as president was nothing like the one he promised as a presidential candidate. Instead of a plan “similar to the plan available to members of Congress”, he offered us the option – or, rather, mandate – of purchasing a plan from the same health insurance industry that had consistently abused its near monopoly of its product for the past several years or decades – albeit restrained by some government regulation. Instead of a system that provides competition to that insurance industry he offered us a system that mandates most Americans to purchase health insurance from that same industry – thus solidifying their monopoly.

Obama didn’t even appear to fight for the plan that he promised the American people. It simply slipped off the table. Nor did he acknowledge his about-face.

The health care plan that was passed does have some good provisions in it. It provides government subsidies for the poor for the purchase of health insurance. And it puts some restrictions on the private insurance industry, such as prohibiting it from excluding people based on preexisting conditions or arbitrarily dropping coverage on those who become sick. But in retaliation, health insurance companies have raised their premiums considerably, thereby making health insurance less affordable for many Americans.


Further erosion of our constitution in pursuit of the “War on Terror”

A recent article in the New York Times, apparently leaked by someone in the Obama administration, talks of a “kill list” that lists targets for assassination by the U.S. military. An editorial in The Nation expresses grave concern over this policy:

For those concerned about the constitutional protection of civil liberties and the rule of law… the extraordinary practices (represented by the kill list) was profoundly disturbing. The drone policy the president has developed not only infringes on the sovereignty of other nations, but the assassinations violate laws put in place in the 1970s after scandals enveloped an earlier era of CIA criminality…

The kill list makes a mockery of due process by circumventing judicial review, and turning the executive into judge, jury and executioner. Even worse, the “signature” strikes described in the Times article, in which nameless individuals are assassinated based merely on patterns of behavior, dispense with any semblance of habeas corpus altogether. According to the Center for Constitutional Rights, signature strikes account for most of the attacks in Pakistan today, and they were recently approved for use in Yemen.

The article speaks of hundreds of associated civilian deaths, when civilians are mistakenly targeted or just happen to be nearby when the assassination occurs. With regard to the issue of whether such a program makes us safer:

It is hard to argue that they are making us safer when, for every suspect killed, one or more newly embittered militants emerge to take his place. This is not a prescription for American security but for an endless war that will sap our moral core and put in jeopardy our most cherished freedoms at home.

Most of us were incensed with George W. Bush’s conduct of his “War on Terror”. How do we respond to a Democratic president who continues many of those policies? The editorial concludes:

We know more than enough to conclude that President Obama’s continuation and expansion of George W. Bush’s “war on terror” has further eroded legal barriers built over decades to limit executive power. For those who believed Obama would restore the rule of law after Bush’s imperial overreach, learning the details of these operations has been troubling. Liberals raised a ruckus about Bush’s abuses. Silence now is not an option.


Treatment of whistleblowers

It is perhaps the Obama Administration’s treatment of whistleblowers – such as Bradley Manning – that upsets me the most about our President. Peter Van Buren, in “Leaking War” (published in The Nation), begins with a summary of the double standard used by the Obama administration to severely punish whistleblowers who threaten its reputation, while itself leaking secrets that it sees as being to its political advantage:

Leaks that favor the president are shoveled out regardless of national security, while national security is twisted to pummel leaks that do not favor him. Watching their boss, bureaucrats act on their own, freelancing the punishment of whistleblowers, knowing their retaliatory actions will be condoned…. What lies at the nexus of Obama’s targeted drone killings, his self-serving leaks and his aggressive prosecution of whistleblowers is a president who believes himself above the law…

Self-serving leaks
Speaking of the drone attacks so frequently ordered by the Obama administration, Van Buren writes:

After years of now-you-see-it-now-you-don’t stories about drone attacks across the Greater Middle East launched “presumably” by the US, the Times carried a remarkable story not only confirming the drone killings but noting that Obama himself was the Great Bombardier. He had, the newspaper reported, designated himself the final decision-maker on an eyes-only “kill list” of human beings the United States wanted to destroy… Clearly, this had previously been classified top-secret material, and yet its disclosure was attributed directly to White House sources. The high-level leaks on … the kill list… actually follow no less self-serving leaked details from last year’s bin Laden raid in Pakistan.

Punishing whistleblowers
Yet whistleblowers who divulge information that the President doesn’t want divulged are treated very differently than those who divulge secrets that the President approves of:

The Obama administration has been cruelly and unusually punishing in its use of the 1917 Espionage Act to stomp on governmental leakers, truth-tellers and whistleblowers whose disclosures do not support the president’s political ambitions. As Thomas Drake, himself a victim of Obama’s crusade against whistleblowers, told me, “This makes a mockery of the entire classification system, where political gain is now incentive for leaking and whistle blowing is incentive for prosecution.”

The Obama administration has charged more people (six) under the Espionage Act for the alleged mishandling of classified information than all past presidencies combined. Prior to Obama, there were only three such cases in American history, one being Daniel Ellsberg, of Nixon-era Pentagon Papers fame. The most recent Espionage Act case is that of former CIA officer John Kiriakou, charged for allegedly disclosing classified information to journalists about the horrors of waterboarding.

Obama’s zeal in silencing leaks that don’t make him look like a superhero extends beyond the deployment of the Espionage Act into a complex legal tangle of retaliatory practices, life-destroying threats, on-the-job harassment and firings. Lots of firings.

Effects on freedom of the press
These administration policies appear to be on the verge of endangering our First Amendment. Van Buren notes:

When everything is classified any attempt to report on anything threatens to become a crime; unless, of course, the White House decides to leak to you in return for a soft story about a heroic war president.

For everyone else working to create Jefferson’s informed citizenry, it works very differently… Times reporter Jim Risen is now the subject of subpoenas by the Obama administration demanding he name his sources as part of {an} Espionage Act case… Risen was a journalist doing his job, and he raises this perfectly reasonable question: “Can you have a democracy without aggressive investigative journalism? I don’t believe you can, and that’s why I’m fighting.” Meanwhile, the government calls him their only witness to a leaker’s crime.

One thing at stake in the case is the requirement that journalists aggressively pursue information important to the public, even when that means heading into classified territory. If almost everything of importance (and much that isn’t) is classified, then journalism as we know it may become… well, illegal.

Summary of the Obama administration’s treatment of whistleblowers
Van Buren quotes James Spione, a director who is now working on a documentary about whistleblowers”

I don’t believe this is about security at all. It is the unfair singling out of whistleblowers by a secrecy regime that is more than anything just another weapon in the state’s arsenal to bludgeon its enemies while vaunting its supposed successes – if you can call blowing up unsuspecting people, their families, and friends with a remote control airplane ‘success.’

Here is the simple reality of our moment: the president has definitively declared himself (and his advisers and those who carry out his orders) above the law, both statutory and moral. It is now for him and him alone to decide who will live and who will die under the drones, for him to reward media outlets with inside information or smack journalists who disturb him and his colleagues with subpoenas, and worst of all, to decide all by himself what is right and what is wrong.


CONCLUSION

I find Obama’s conduct of the “War on Terror” and his treatment of whistleblowers to be very scary, and I don’t see how anyone can defend stuff like that. Yet, I still believe that Romney would be worse. So I do hope that Obama wins this November. Yet I also worry that if progressives support Obama in this election they will be sending a message to all of our Democratic leaders to the effect that Democrats can move as far to the right as they want, in order to attract big money to their campaigns, without having to worry about losing our votes. That is a dangerous message in my opinion. Electing Romney would also be very dangerous to our country. The only solution that I see to this dilemma is something along the lines suggested by Katrina vanden Huevel, whereby we support our Democratic leaders and fight them at the same time. The question is where to find the proper balance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
madfloridian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-19-12 07:24 PM
Response to Original message
1. Thoughtful well-researched post. Good to see you post here.
:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-19-12 08:51 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. Thank you
:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mercymechap Donating Member (74 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-19-12 07:54 PM
Response to Original message
2. Even if all of your gibberish were to be completely true
I would still vote for Obama over any Republican. Romney has shown that he doesn't know which side of any issue he is on, he just chooses the side that he thinks will get him what he wants at the moment. He also hasn't shown how he is going to do all the marvelous things he promises. I have a feeling that, just like all the rest of the conservatives, he will sacrifice the needs of the middle-class and below to pander to his billionaire base. And, especially after the way that Republicans have behaved since Obama was elected, any Democrat voting for them deserves whatever misfortune comes to him as a result of another Republican being president. The recent fiasco going on in Congress with Republicans trying to hold Holder in contempt, after he has offered them the documents they have asked for (which have never before been released to Congress) just shows that Republicans don't give a damn about the country, they just want to destroy Obama's administration in any way possible. That is what they have been doing for the past 3 1/2 years, nothing that helps the country, just stirring the pot in the hopes that they can create more chaos, stop progress and blame Obama.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-19-12 08:54 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. Gibberish?
I guess you don't believe it, then.

The articles that I quote are very well documented. Do you have a reason for not believing it, or is it just blind faith in Obama?

Anyhow, I agree with what you say about Republicans. But that doesn't make Obama a decent president.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mercymechap Donating Member (74 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-21-12 01:26 AM
Response to Reply #4
26. Let's say that I don't believe your statement regarding
torture. Your articles may be very well documented, but where are you getting your sources, Faux News? Several sources claim that the type of torture being done under Bush's Administration are no longer done, thanks to Obama. Also, Obama's promise to let the Bush Tax Cuts expire became a problem when the House of Representatives became majority Republican. Obama wanted to let the Bush tax cuts expire, but not the tax cuts for the middle class. Republicans in Congress would not go along, refused to pass the bill, and were willing to let the middle-class eat cake, unless Obama gave in to their demands, to extend the Bush tax cuts. They have also held Obama hostage on other occasions, such as the Debt ceiling, where they wouldn't agree to increase it unless Obama gave in to their demands. If Obama had held off given them their demands and allowed the time to raise the debt ceiling to expire, we would have suffered much more than a decrease in our rating, even though it has affected our economy. Obama has accomplished much more for the country and especially for minorities and the middle-class in spite of the opposition from the Republican side, which he should be given credit for. Democrats that don't vote for Obama or don't vote at all might as well hand over the country to the Republicans so they can finish what they started back in 2000, that is putting the country in the toilet.

http://garthright.blogspot.com/2012/01/how-debt-limit-d...

Politifact.com:
Wide agreement that Obama's torture ban has held
Updated: Monday, November 14th, 2011 | By Louis Jacobson

During the presidential campaign, Barack Obama promised to "end the use torture without exception.” Initially we gave him a rating of In the Works, but we are now ready to give him a Promise Kept. (We address the other part of this promise, on extraordinary rendition, in a separate item.)

As we indicated the last time we looked at this question, Obama acted two days after taking office -- Jan. 22, 2009 -- by issuing a detailed executive order on torture and related issues.

The executive order said that prisoners "shall in all circumstances be treated humanely and shall not be subjected to violence to life and person (including murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment, and torture), nor to outrages upon personal dignity (including humiliating and degrading treatment)." It also specifically nullifies interpretations of federal law on interrogations "issued by the Department of Justice between September 11, 2001, and January 20, 2009" under President George W. Bush.

The executive order brings the CIA into line with U.S. Army Field Manual on Interrogation, said said Tom Malinowski, Washington director for Human Rights Watch. This limits interrogators to humane techniques, a standard that already applies as a matter of law to the U.S. military, he said.

In addition, Obama "created a High Value Interrogation Group to manage the debriefing of the most important suspected terrorist captives using humane, non-coercive techniques,” Malinowski said. "This doesn"t mean that abuse never happens, but there is no policy of abuse any more, and there is strong leadership from the president on down to prevent it.”

Even the American Civil Liberties Union -- in a report that generally expressed skepticism about how much Obama had changed the Bush administration"s policies on countering terrorism -- acknowledged that his actions on torture were strong.

Some of the Bush-era policies "have been stopped,” the report said. "Torture … (is) no longer officially condoned. … President Obama categorically disavowed torture when he came to office, and closed the secret CIA prisons where so much of the abuse took place.”

We rate this a Promise Kept.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obamet...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-23-12 05:38 PM
Response to Reply #26
86. It is not Time for Change's statement about torture. Amnesty International
Edited on Sat Jun-23-12 05:40 PM by No Elephants
has appealed to Obama to end torture in places like Bagram.

And Obama continued to engage in extraordinary rendition for purposes of having other nations, including Assad's Syria, to torture our captives.

I don't know if Politifact is confining itself to torture at Gitmo, but this is Amnesty's specialty and focus; and Amnesty is by no means a rightie organization.

I would go with Amnesty on the torture issue before Politifact's.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mercymechap Donating Member (74 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-25-12 04:38 PM
Response to Reply #86
87. What Time for Change did not include in his post was
the fact that it was Obama's intention to close GITMO, but there was so much Republican opposition that he was not able to go along with his plans. Those that were going to be tried here in the US, were not due to the opposition by the right. Countries that could be trusted not to torture are not willing to take any detainees. It's not like Obama supports torture in these other countries. There is no proof that Obama is cheering them on or agrees with it, it's just a matter of inability to control what goes on in other countries. Instead of just putting the blame on Obama, maybe he should have offered some reasoning.


Mr. Obama won praise from around the world when, shortly after taking office in 2009, he ordered the Guantánamo Bay prison closed within a year, saying it was contrary to American values and a symbol for terrorist propaganda.

By then, the Bush administration already had transferred more than 500 of the detainees it had sent to Guantánamo, and the Obama administration has since winnowed the population to 174 from 240, with help from Ireland, Spain, Portugal, Belgium and other countries. But Mr. Obama missed his deadline, and the goal has faded as a priority, with domestic opposition to moving some detainees to a prison inside the United States and with other countries that condemned the Guantánamo prison reluctant to take in detainees.

In the fall of 2009, Lithuania’s newly elected president backed out of her country’s previous agreement to resettle a prisoner amid an uproar over reports that the Central Intelligence Agency had run a secret jail in Lithuania. The chairman of the Lithuanian Parliament’s national security committee privately apologized and suggested using mutual allies to pressure her to reconsider, the cables show.

Other dispatches illuminated the difficulties of resettling Uighurs, Chinese Muslim prisoners who had been ordered freed by a federal judge. China was deemed likely to abuse them, but Beijing demanded their return.




http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/30/world/americas/30gitm...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jakes Progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-19-12 09:46 PM
Response to Reply #2
5. Attacking republicans on a Dem forum. How brave.
And completely beside the point. Please show where the OP suggested that romney would be a better president or where the OP suggested that ore republicans should be elected. By not addressing the issues in the OP, your post becomes pointless.

Try looking up the word "nuance".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mercymechap Donating Member (74 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-21-12 12:45 AM
Response to Reply #5
21. It doesn't take rocket science to figure out that
if a Democrat doesn't vote for Obama, or if a Democrat doesn't vote at all, it's as good as giving the vote to Romney, so what's your problem with understanding that?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jakes Progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-21-12 01:04 AM
Response to Reply #21
22. Amazingly simple.
And simplistic. Our party is now more conservative than richard nixon. If we keep doing what we've been doing, we will keep . . . . Hell, you know the drill.

I see why you have a problem understanding that. Simple is as simple does.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-21-12 01:10 AM
Response to Reply #22
24. You have a problem with a one party system in the United States?
Hell, it was good enough for Stalin's Russia and Hussein's Iraq.

What, in your opinion, makes the U.S. so doggone exceptional?

"The left has nowhere else to go."

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mercymechap Donating Member (74 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-21-12 01:37 AM
Response to Reply #22
27. So your suggestion is to allow a Republican to take over
because they are less conservative than Richard Nixon? Brilliant. The Republican party has moved so far to the right to appear radical. Perhaps that is why you think that our party is more conservative than Richard Nixon, because Nixon wasn't as far to the right as the Tea Party has taken the GOP.

I don't have a problem understanding that, what I have a problem is understanding what your solution is. Certainly allowing Romney to win is not going to make the country less conservative, especially when the Tea Party is going to be pulling his strings.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-21-12 02:12 AM
Response to Reply #27
31. Straw man reasoning. Neither the OP nor Jakes Progress said anything like that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mercymechap Donating Member (74 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-21-12 06:01 PM
Response to Reply #31
43. So, I guess if it isn't written down in black and white
then you think that it isn't insinuated? If you don't vote for Obama, who else is there to vote for that won't help Romney get elected. Use your common sense.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mercymechap Donating Member (74 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-21-12 06:20 PM
Response to Reply #31
45. The OP's title "Time for A Change" doesn't imply that
Obama should be out? His reasons why he has trouble supporting Obama doesn't send the message that he may not vote for Obama? Is he just airing dirty laundry but supposing that those who read his rantings and are undecided will just ignore it?

It is clear to me that a Democrat that disses Obama, the only candidate for the Democratic party, is proposing a change. Since there is no one else but Romney running (unless you think that Ron Paul has a chance in hell), what is anyone suppose to glean from that?

I know the OP may be your friend, but come on, it doesn't take rocket science to figure out what he is doing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-21-12 09:48 PM
Response to Reply #45
53. "Time for change" is my screen name
I've used that name on DU since 2004, when George W. Bush was president.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-22-12 05:04 AM
Response to Reply #53
70. Don't confuse us with factual information!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mercymechap Donating Member (74 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-22-12 09:01 PM
Response to Reply #53
72. Okay, sorry about that, after reading your post and seeing
your negative comments I thought you were implying that it was time for a change. However, even if it is your screen name, most of your post screams "time for a change". You still haven't responded to the things that I objected regarding your post, though.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-22-12 12:39 AM
Response to Reply #45
58. The OP may be my friend? LOL!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-22-12 05:02 AM
Response to Reply #45
69. Self delete.
Edited on Fri Jun-22-12 05:03 AM by No Elephants
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jakes Progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-21-12 03:49 PM
Response to Reply #27
39. You don't read with much understanding.
Or you purposefully misrepresent.

Show me where I suggested that a republican should be elected. If you can't do that, you could always be honest and apologize. I won't expect that though.

But you are doing a good job of alienating those who you need to have vote for Obama. You do want him to win don't you? I take it you are new to all this and don't understand how you get people to be on your side. That or you don't care whether Obama wins or not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mercymechap Donating Member (74 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-21-12 06:09 PM
Response to Reply #39
44. I'm not trying to misrepresent. What do you expect from
someone that creates a thread that gives reasons why one shouldn't vote for Obama? You may not have come out and said that a Republican should be elected, but when you are proposing to people reasons why one shouldn't vote for Obama, what other meaning are we supposed to get from that? Do you know of another Democratic candidate that may be nominated instead of Obama that we haven't heard about?

As for alienating those who I need to vote for Obama, I don't believe I'm the one that is doing the alienating. Those who are claiming that Obama hasn't been doing a good job and those agreeing with him are the ones that are doing that, and it's obvious that they themselves are maybe thinking that they won't vote for Obama, so dissing him isn't going to endear those who are undecided. And agreeing with you isn't going to make you change your mind about what you believe regarding Obama.

I don't expect people that dis Obama to be on my side, usually those are Republicans, and by dissing Obama, you are putting yourself on their side.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-22-12 12:46 AM
Response to Reply #44
59. Stop flailing.
First, you accuse me of posting a certain way because the OP is my friend. Now, you imply that anyone who criticizes Obama is Republican. If you had good arguments, you would not need to do that.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mercymechap Donating Member (74 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-22-12 09:06 PM
Response to Reply #59
73. Now you are making up stuff. It's okay for you to claim
that I imply something, but you sure took exception when I suggested that the OP was implying some things. I never said that anyone who criticizes Obama is a Republican, so quit making up stuff. I did say that any Democrat that doesn't vote for Obama or doesn't vote at all is as good as casting a vote for Romney. That sure doesn't make anyone a Republican, just a helper to the Republicans.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-23-12 04:33 PM
Response to Reply #73
83. Bullshit. You posted, "I don't expect people that dis Obama to be on my side, usually those are
Edited on Sat Jun-23-12 04:44 PM by No Elephants
Republicans, and by dissing Obama, you are putting yourself on their side."

Usually, people who act like Republicans and are on the side of Repubicans are not Democrats, but Republicans.

You reply 73 spins the original language differently, but only fter the fact. So, I trust you know what you can do with your accusations that I made things up by saying you implied that people who criticize Obama are Republicans. And even your spin is to the effect that critics of Obama aid and abet Republicans. Again, that is not the behavior of Democrats.

Too bad you can't see criticism of Obama can be helpful to both Obama and the Democratic Party. Too bad you are as resentful and dismissive of criticism from the left as Obama and his white house.

The OP gave two sides of an issue. You have posted consistently as though he posted only that people should not vote for Obama. And calling his well-cited analysis "dissing Obama" is babyish and unduly dismissive, as was your opening salvo calling it gibberish.

You have yet to make one post of the caliber of his, or to rebut his post on its substance. You have only criticized him for daring to discuss two sides of the issue instead of only the one side you prefer, apparently for reasons you are unable to articulate beyond the level of insults and insinuations.


I expect people who can tolerate discussion of only one side of an issue, who demand unconditional acceptance of their hero politicians and who repeatedly distort what people say to be conservatives. And they are, no matter what they designate themselves.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mercymechap Donating Member (74 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-26-12 06:04 PM
Response to Reply #83
89. Putting yourself on the side of a Republican does
not make you a Republican. But it sure bolsters up their side. And, you're doing a fine job of it. And, I did rebut his post, obviously you chose to ignore that.

You said this: "Usually, people who act like Republicans and are on the side of Repubicans are not Democrats, but Republicans".

So, maybe you are speaking out of your own guilt - because by dissing Obama, you are acting like a Republican. Usually, if it quacks like a duck it is a duck.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-20-12 07:14 AM
Response to Reply #2
9. Whether you agree or disagree with the OP, it is about as far from gibberish as a GD post has ever
gotten.

Also, Time for Change did not suggest that he or she intended to vote for Romney.

While not voting at all or voting third party may be viewed as indirectly helping Romney, Time for Change specified clearly that his or her vote is highly unlikely to affect the electoral vote that Maryland casts, which is all that matters at the top of the ticket.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jakes Progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-21-12 01:06 AM
Response to Reply #9
23. Mercy didn't agree or disagree.
Didn't even approach the subject of the OP. Just knee-jerked and genuflected to the rule of group-think.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-21-12 01:12 AM
Response to Reply #23
25. .....
Edited on Thu Jun-21-12 01:13 AM by No Elephants
I thought my post covered those points.

Damn my unintentional subtlety to hell!

Thanks for making my sentiments more explicit. Obviously, I agree with you and the OP.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mercymechap Donating Member (74 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-21-12 01:39 AM
Response to Reply #23
28. As opposed to the group think that Obama stinks
and allowing a Republican to take over will make for a better America?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-21-12 02:14 AM
Response to Reply #28
32. As far as I can tell, that group exists only in your mind, so I will let you deal with it.
Edited on Thu Jun-21-12 02:30 AM by No Elephants
As has been pointed out to you at least twice on this thread now, the OP never said any such thing.

In addition, you continue to ignore the OP's carefully drawn distinction between a decidely blue state's electoral votes and an individual vote in a swing state, although I underscored that for you in a prior post.

Meanwhile, I would love to know your suggestions for stopping the Democratic Party from marching relentlessly to the right, thereby driving Republicans further to the right in order to try to distinguish themselves from "center" right Democrats who act pretty much like Republicans.

If this keeps up our only choice will be between the really far right and the really, really far right. And Democrats feels safe in that because, as they've said over and over, "The Left has nowhere else to go."

I'm afraid I have to agree with Jake's Progress about being overly simplistic.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mercymechap Donating Member (74 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-21-12 06:27 PM
Response to Reply #32
46. And as I have pointed out to you and others
it doesn't take rocket science to figure out that when someone says "it's time for a change" and "reasons why I have trouble supporting Obama" that they are thinking of not voting for him or voting for the opposition. If you have some other extrapolation for it, by all means share it instead of just telling me that he didn't say that.

I don't have a suggestion for stopping the Democratic Party from marching relentlessly to the right, which I would like for you to point exactly where Obama has done that. I have already explained that with a majority Republican house and filibusters in the Senate, we should be thankful for all that Obama has done. He passed the Stimulus, (which the right did not want), he passed the Affordable Care Act (which the right didn't want), he passed the Dream Act (which the right didn't want), he passed DADT, (which the right didn't want) and has now even supported same-sex marriage. How far right is that for you?

So, what is your suggestion? Dissing Obama, alienating undecided voters and allowing Romney to win? Brilliant.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-22-12 12:50 AM
Response to Reply #46
60. I never blamed Obama for the march of the Democratic Party to the right. Read the thread.
Edited on Fri Jun-22-12 01:24 AM by No Elephants
Everything isn't about Obama.

For the sake of my party, i wish it were only about Obama. Then the issue would resolve in four years at most, but Obama is the result of the problem, not the cause of it.

I could, however, cite any number of examples in which Obama has taken the exact same position as Bush, and other examples where Obama has gone further right than ANY Republican President before him. (Clinton, too.)

Any honest person who has kept up could give those examples, even if they are willing to rationalize everything away or simply give Obama a pass on all of them because he chose to put a (D) after his name.

Some examples are in the OP. Others are all over the DU board. Some are on the first page of even little DU2 as I type this.

If you don't know of at least twenty, Google is your friend. No poster on this board, including me, should be expected to spend their time filling you in. Besides, I doubt it would make a difference.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jakes Progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-21-12 03:53 PM
Response to Reply #28
40. Still wading in the shallow pool of thought?
Stretch a little. See if you can figure out why a Democrat with 40 years of heavy political activism and liberal credentials that you need that much time to develop might write these posts. Try to think beyond your nose. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you really can't see it. I'll even give you the benefit of the doubt and believe that, if you really tried, you might.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mercymechap Donating Member (74 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-21-12 06:47 PM
Response to Reply #40
49. Well, when you answer some of my questions instead of
just continuing to babble about what wonderful posts the OP has created, maybe I can see where you are coming from. From what I can see, you're disappointed in Obama, you think there needs to be change, you have trouble supporting Obama, but you have no solutions other than to either vote for Obama and allow your disappointment to grow, or not vote for Obama and allow Romney to become President, and then what? That will fix the democratic party into going further left? If Romney wins, there may never be another chance for any Democrat to ever become president. We've already seen what Republicans were able to do in Wisconsin with their money, what makes you think they won't do the same for the Presidency? The Supreme Court will be completely Republican (or at least majority for a while) and anything that can't be resolved in a majority Republican House and Senate will be shipped over to the Supreme Court. You'll be wishing for Obama to come back.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stellar Donating Member (251 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-20-12 05:49 PM
Response to Reply #2
17. I agree!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jakes Progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-21-12 03:55 PM
Response to Reply #17
41. Agree with what?
What did the post you support actually say that had anything to do with the OP? Do you know very much about the life of the man quoted in your avatar? If so, apply that to today and tell me how third way he would be.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jakes Progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-19-12 10:04 PM
Response to Original message
6. I gotta add the Education issue to the list.
His support for bush/reagan education policies and the actual doubling down on such policies is the sourest part of his legacy to me. I spent the 2008 campaign working rooms of teachers and spent dozens of hours in educators' living rooms convincing them that this man meant a change for the better for schools, students, and teachers. Now I am ashamed to see these people. His use of arne hitman duncan to both expand the bill bennet concept of schools while simultaneously gutting unions is probably a deal killer for me.

Living in Texas, there is no reason to suspect if my ballot read straight Democrat except for one blank that it would make much difference either (although for a sadder reason than yours). I was told early in the term that my vote was not considered important, so I belong the the politically written off class of voter. But I think if you multiply my disillusion and disgust by the hundreds and thousands that I think is about right, you get a lot of volunteer work from 2008 not being done in 2012.

The Nation article only touches on the role that fanatic Obama supporters (emphasis on "fan") played in the failure of the Obama administration to make the difference it could have. It wasn't just their complacency with Obama's rightward tilt and appeasement politics. They championed the third way as their way. Their support gave him cover for misstep after misstep. They held him as unaccountable as Obama has held bushco for their actions. Had they actually taken Obama at his word and held him accountable and voiced their disapproval as the direction swerved right over and over, maybe it could have helped him do the job that the nation clearly thought he could do.

I've seldom be as disappointed in politics. Not in Obama himself (he is a politician) but in the starry-eyed, principle-free, blind support of supposed liberals for policies that under any republican would have been attacked.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madfloridian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-19-12 11:05 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. That issue is killing me. Few care how teachers and public schools are hurting.
That's a huge issue for me and other teachers. They are NOT paying attention to teacher voices, only the corporate ones.

I think the fact that so few realize that public education will soon be a thing of the past is truly scaring me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jakes Progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-19-12 11:51 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. The galling part
is that the very policies and practices being championed by this administration and ignored by the majority of those on reDU would be attacked viciously had bush suggested them. As I said in my last para, this is what is most disappointing to me: that Democrats would behave just like the worst of the republicans when it comes to ignoring principle for political fandom. Been at this for over 40 years and never so disgusted with so many of my fellow Democrats. What hath the third way wrought?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-20-12 07:19 AM
Response to Reply #8
10. What hath third way wrought? Two major political parties that desperately try to occupy the right.
We have just about attained the status, for practical purposes, of a one-party nation--and a startingly militaristic and opaque one at that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-20-12 02:14 PM
Response to Reply #6
13. Excellent points
Especially about providing Obama cover for his mis-steps -- or more specifically, his huge tilts to the right. I do believe it's true that he is being enabled in his behavior by those who just cannot bring themselves to acknowledge what he's doing. And that is the best argument for not supporting him -- although I do believe that Romney is worse.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-20-12 07:21 AM
Response to Original message
11. I feel your pain. Jake's and madfloridian's, too. Sadly the issue is not, IMO, limited to our
Edited on Wed Jun-20-12 07:31 AM by No Elephants
current President, though.

It is that the entire Party has gone either center right or full on right right. Democrats seem to fight liberals and traditional Democrats more than Republicans do, starting with the people who are targeted to run for seats that are either vacating or held by Republicans--well before primaries.

People who are traditional or classic Democrats and those left of them have a lot of decisions to make.

On the other hand, Wall Street, which seeks predictablity--and seems, for some bizarre reason to feel entitled to it when nothing and no one else gets it--is comfy cosy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-20-12 02:19 PM
Response to Reply #11
14. Absolutely
The Democratic Party is as a whole (though not all of its memebers) is tilting far towards the right, and being corrupted by money. I guess that's a function of the extent to which money is allowed to influence our political system today -- facilitated by court decisions such as Citizens United.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-21-12 02:11 AM
Response to Reply #14
30. Money has been running government since at least 1990 if not 1690.
I think Citizens's United has done a lot less to change election law than people think. However, being the decision of a Republican court, it has been a convenient focal point.

If you read the decision, it is founded on NAACP v. Button and Buckley v. Valeo.

NAACP was a 1960's case that held that, under the First Amendment, an organization did not have to disclose its members, even if government was demanding its membership list. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAACP_v._Button

Buckley v. Valeo held that, while government could regulate campaign contributions, unions spending money to influence elections was a form of speech protected by the First Amendment and could not be limited. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckley_v._Valeo

(I imagine that both those decisions delighted liberals and galled conservatives no end.)

However, as the SCOTUS noted in Citizens, there was another line of SCOTUS cases that seemed to contradict the holdings of Button and Valeo by holding that government could put a lot of controls on campaign contributions without violating the First Amendment.

So, the Citizens court felt that it had to eliminate SCOTUS decisions that were inconsistent with each other. (I agree. Congress and citizens should have some way of coming close to figuring out whether they are violating the law or not, especially when it comes to elections.)


So, the SCOTUS decided to follow the Button and Valeo line of First Amendment cases, rather than the cases that allowed government unfettered ability to regulate campaign contributions and spending.

Citizens removed the inconsistency by broadening first amendment protection of campaign contriubtions to organizations like unions, corporations (both for profit and not for profit). Individuals already had unlimited ability to donate (and bundle, and politicians tend to treat bundlers very well.

In fact, I just read an article a day or so ago about how Obama gave ambassadorships and other government positions to a lot of his bundlers, but only one so far has left his job to help Obama in the 2012 campaign.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/19/obama-bundlers...

In 2008, pre-Citizens, Obama raised almost a billion dollars and, during primary season, Hillary's bundlers got caught disguising contributions from China.

And billionaires never had any problem pumping money into the system because the restrictions that Citizens struck down applied only to corporations. Individuals could always contribute (or bundle) as much they could get their hands on.

Thanks to Citizens, they cam now cut a corporate check instead of a personal check, which may give them some tax advantage, but the rich could ALWAYS buy politicians.


As far as the distinction between corporations and individuals, I have seen lots of pre-Citizens politicial contribution lists where a corporation gave money to a certain politician and so did quite a few of its individual employees. Coincidence? Maybe.

IMO, though, as a practical Citizens did a lot less to change things than we have been led to believe.

Besides, I always thought both Button and Valeo had been decided correctly and would hated to have seen them both overruled for the sake of reconciling two conflicting lines of SCOTUS cases.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-21-12 08:38 AM
Response to Reply #30
35. I agree with you that money has had highly disproporionate influence in our political system
for a very long time -- well before Citizens United. Citizens United did make the system worse, but reversing that decision alone will fall far short of solving the problem.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-22-12 12:58 AM
Response to Reply #35
61. I doubt our government is unique in that respect. It's just that we've been told a different story
Edited on Fri Jun-22-12 01:01 AM by No Elephants
about our government and therefore we have a certain image of it and certain expectations.

If anyone reads the Constitution the way that it was originally presented for ratification--sans any amendments--they may see it differently than we have been trained to see it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-20-12 09:32 AM
Response to Original message
12. Not many substantive posts have received five recs at DU2 in recent months


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JoseGaspar Donating Member (391 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-20-12 02:28 PM
Response to Original message
15. What does "better" and "worse" mean?

I read somewhere, once - perhaps it was on Democratic Underground - that low-income Republican voters were stupid because they vote "against their own interests". It seems to me that what is good for the goose is also gander bait. The question for Democratic voters is precisely the same. How have those interests fared during the last 10, 20, 40 or even 60 years? How have they fared under Republicans and how have they fared under Democrats?

To be more precise, since the 1970s:

Has the position of working people improved?
Has unionization been strengthened?
Has basic equality advanced (and by equality is meant economic equality, first and foremost)?
What has been the story on war, militarization, and the defense budget?
What has actually happened on housing, education, health care, poverty, culture...?
Have the prisons shrunk and schools grown?

etc...

All talk of who intended or tried to do what is simple soap opera. All focus on personalities is simple diversion.

If you vote against your interests you simply invoke Einstein's Maxim.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-21-12 02:33 AM
Response to Reply #15
33. It means that a DINO is preferable to someone who accurately characterizes his or her politics.
I have no idea why anyone believe that to be true, but, apparently, some espouse that view.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JoseGaspar Donating Member (391 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-21-12 12:47 PM
Response to Reply #33
37. OK, what does "DINO" mean?
I'm not talking about the usual subjects: Nelson, Nelson, Baucus, etc...
I'm also not confusing this or that policy or social preference with broad "interest" (which, after all was the basis of the criticism of Republican "blue-collar" voters for not voting "their interests").

Pick a subject.

How about, who is a tool of the banks? Who gets a lion's share of their contributions from the banks? Who supports legislation which favors the banks and torpedoes or "moderates" policy which would hinder them. We are not talking about rhetoric here, but action.

Who is the DINO?

The usual subjects certainly qualify... but, who else?

In our classification, isn't "Chuck" Schumer a DINO? How about Andrew Cuomo? Chris Dodd? Wyden?

And then, how about Corozine, Daley?

Booker qualifies, but doesn't Deval Patrick as well?

How about the beloved Barney Frank of Dodd-Frank?

But then, what about Clinton or Obama?

Who isn't the DINO? I agree that FDR wasn't by this current definition, but he died nearly 70 years ago.

There are always reasons for this and that but, how about "interests"?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-22-12 01:26 AM
Response to Reply #37
62. Maybe my post was not clear, despite the second sentence. I don't know if you and I
Edited on Fri Jun-22-12 01:28 AM by No Elephants
agree on every particular, but I think we agree a lot more than we disagree.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AndyTiedye Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-20-12 04:42 PM
Response to Original message
16. People wanted another FDR, but even FDR needed to be pushed.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jakes Progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-20-12 11:18 PM
Response to Reply #16
18. You can't get to Obama to push him.
Too many republicrats and democans "have his back".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-20-12 11:31 PM
Response to Reply #18
20. I call them Republicrats and Demlicans.
Giving DLC/No Labels types only three letters from the Republican name seems stingy. I like to be more generous.
;-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-20-12 11:27 PM
Response to Reply #16
19. Obama is nothing like FDR--and trying to push Obama gets nowhere.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mercymechap Donating Member (74 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-21-12 01:47 AM
Response to Original message
29. Here, I think you need to read the following
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-21-12 02:54 AM
Response to Reply #29
34. LOL!
Edited on Thu Jun-21-12 03:08 AM by No Elephants
Based on the quality of Time for Change's OP, I strongly disagree.

Not very surprised that you consider Honeycombe8 authoritative, though.

I was once struck by the similarity between your posting style and stances and hers, so I looked at both profiles. Both women from Texas with interests in the same kinds of things.

Maybe similar backgrounds do yield other similarities (although I hate the idea of determinism of any kind). that thought.

In any event, too bad Spring Branch is not closer to Dallas (assuming Honeycombe still lives in Dallas). You two might really enjoy a coffee klatsch.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mercymechap Donating Member (74 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-21-12 06:54 PM
Response to Reply #34
50. I would rather spend time with a positive attitude than
with a complaining negative disser. I don't know Honeycombe8, but I agree with most of what she said and very little of what most on this thread have said. So, if you are so disappointed with Obama, please tell me what you plan to do.

Not vote for Obama,

Vote for Obama but continue to find fault and ignore the good he has done.

Vote for Romney and hope that he moves the country more to the left.

Vote for Ron Paul and inadvertently give my vote to Romney.

Not vote for anyone and inadvertently give my vote to Romney.

Would be interesting to see what your answer will be.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-22-12 01:35 AM
Response to Reply #50
63. You think that you've been displaying a positive attitufde on this thread?
Edited on Fri Jun-22-12 01:54 AM by No Elephants
In your mind, does calling a well thought out and well written OP "gibberish" simply because you disagree with it display a positive attitude?

Does posting an OP starting with "I am sick and tired of people complaining about Obama" evidence a positive attitude?

Jake's Progress suggested you look up; the definition of "nuance." I am going to suggest that you research "positive attitude."

Hint: The term has less than nothing to do with approving of all things Obama, nor does "negative attitude" mean that someone can point to things he or she does not love about Obama.

BTW, your posts indicate that you may need a 2012 election primer and an understanding of DU rules.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mercymechap Donating Member (74 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-22-12 09:14 PM
Response to Reply #63
74. Why don't you read the post that I'm responding to before
making such idiotic accusations. I was being told that I resemble some poster whom I posted a link to her/his positive post regarding Obama. Then I was told I could enjoy having coffee with her/him. My response was that I would rather spend time with someone with a positive attitude than with someone with a negative attitude. Where did I imply that I had a positive attitude? Perhaps you have a reading comprehension problem, or you are just pissed cause I didn't agree with your friend's post. To date, neither you nor your friend have challenged the contradictions to his post that I gave him, so maybe you need to go look up the word comprehension.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-23-12 04:11 PM
Response to Reply #74
82. Telling me to read the post the you were responding to? I WROTE it.
Edited on Sat Jun-23-12 04:15 PM by No Elephants
I am not the one with the reading comprehension problem or the idiotic posts.

Your memes are tedious, your insults are lame and none of it is interesting or worth the time or effort..

Were done here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mercymechap Donating Member (74 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-26-12 06:10 PM
Response to Reply #82
90. Well, only a moron wouldn't remember what they posted.
If you wrote the post that told me I should have coffee with Honeycombe, then I was responding to you that I would rather spend time with someone with a positive attitude (honeycombe), rather than with someone with a negative attitude like you. If you are unable to comprehend that and misinterpret it to mean that I have a positive attitude, then you are the one with the reading comprehension problem, nice time for you to bail out, when you've made an ass of yourself..

After reading your lame posts nobody could possible emerge with a positive attitude.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madfloridian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-21-12 11:57 AM
Response to Reply #29
36. So you are judge and jury now?
You think Democrats should not speak when their party leaders are veering too far to the right? Do you think those of us who were/are teachers should remain silent as our own party dismantles public education faster than the Republicans did?

Views like that...that we must not speak out.. far from helping our party, are in fact hurting it.

It's a shame. Hubby and I donated a lot and worked locally for Obama, as we have for other Democrats nationally. It was the least we could do since we have none running locally. Our state party in all its wisdom decided not to run candidates even in Obama friendly areas of Florida.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mercymechap Donating Member (74 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-21-12 06:33 PM
Response to Reply #36
47. I'll do the same thing to you that others on this thread
have done to me. Where in hell did I ever say that "Democrats should not speak when their party leaders are veering too far to the right"?

But starting a thread with a title "Time for a Change" and statements such as "Why I have trouble supporting Obama" are not about how to guide the Democratic party more to the left, it is just dissing Obama and alienating undecided voters. I'm not in total agreement with everything that Obama has done, but I have seen and understand what the Republican party is doing to him, and people on the Democratic side joining in and dissing him are not helping the situation.

Like I told the OP, even with the things that I don't agree with Obama, I would still vote for him or any Democrat before I would consider a Republican. Their (Republicans) manipulation of the truth and their utter disregard for what is best for the country is enough for me to know that even the worst Democrat would be better than the best Republican.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madfloridian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-21-12 08:00 PM
Response to Reply #47
52. His user name is Time for Change. He's an outstanding long time poster.
I am telling you that the mistake being made is the demand for utter complete loyalty and silence on issues that truly matter.

None of us has said we won't vote for him. Right now, I doubt the thousands of teachers being fired or laid off and replaced by recruits trained for 5 weeks will be very active in the campaign.

You can not demand total loyalty from people with degrees of intelligence who see that so many policies are wrong.

I will probably vote to keep Romney out, but I have not donated this time and not giving effort. I taught for over 30 years, and what they are doing to education is breaking my heart.

You need to be careful when you insult someone like Time for Change. He deserves more respect than that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mercymechap Donating Member (74 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-22-12 09:30 PM
Response to Reply #52
75. I'm sure he is an outstanding person, but to date he has
not responded to my challenge to some of his assertions. I live in Texas, have friends that are teachers, and believe me, it was Perry that screwed teachers up royally. He would rather that they lose their jobs than to use the "Rainy Day Fund" which was set up for that very purpose.
The BOE in Texas(which happens to be majority Republican) has revised our students textbooks so that some of the founding fathers such as Jefferson (who is attributed with the separation of church and state idea, and why Republicans dislike him) have been removed from the History books and replaced with idiots such as Schafly, who has done nothing but attack women and their rights.

Obama has done more for the middle-class and poor people than Bush ever did in his 8 years as president. Perhaps if Democrats/Liberals were more loyal to the party instead of wanting to bail every time they don't get their way, we would have the same kind of power the Republican party seems to have with it's members. I've yet to hear a Republican/conservative dis any Republican president, even after Bush was declared one of the worst by historians, and yet, in the Democratic party we have representatives in Congress that will kowtow to the Republicans instead of backing the president. Then Republicans turn around and tell us we are weak and worthless. I don't agree with everything Obama has done, but I certainly understand the reasons why he has gone along with Republicans in some instances. In the Bush Tax Cuts, it was either allow the tax cuts for the middle class to expire along with the millionaires' tax cuts, or give in to them. Republicans are reprehensible in that they don't care what their actions do to the country if they think it will benefit their party. Making suggestions as to why one should have questions about supporting Obama doesn't help the party. There is only one alternative, is either accept Obama even with some policies that we don't like and strive for change through letters and communication with the administration, or let the Republicans take over, and their policies are way far more radically to the right than any of Obama's will ever be.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-22-12 04:16 AM
Response to Reply #47
64. Except that you are doing something that you've both mocked and complained about
Edited on Fri Jun-22-12 04:20 AM by No Elephants
when others "did it to" you.

Isn't that hypocritical?

And why did you launch into an attack on Time for Change when madfloridian asked you a question about your own views?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mercymechap Donating Member (74 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-22-12 09:37 PM
Response to Reply #64
76. Oh, I get it, you get to accuse me of doing something I didn't
do, but if I do the same to you then I'm hypocritical? Perhaps it is more hypocritical to do it to others but don't allow them to do it to you. I didn't launch into an attack on the OP, just on his comments. And, I have challenged some of his assertions and todate neither he nor any of you who are defending his post have responded to any of them. I'm sorry if I disturbed your friendly gathering, I thought this was a political discussion forum, not a coffee klatch where everyone agrees with everyone else.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-23-12 05:13 PM
Response to Reply #76
84. First, no one accused you of doing something you did not do. Second,
Edited on Sat Jun-23-12 05:19 PM by No Elephants
anyone who mocks and complains about something, then does the very same thing is being hypocritical. You are the only one on the thread who did that.

Third, no one stopped you from discussing politics or anything else. You chose to not to do that, but instead to complain that the OP and others were discussing politics in a way that YOU did not want them to discusa politicals. Meanwhile, you chose to discuss mostly other posters, as opposed to specific political issues. (Maybe you consider claiming that posters on this thread are aiding and abetting Republicans discussion of political issues. I don"t. The OP discusses political issues.)

And, even at that, no one stopped you. All your posts are still on the thread and you haven't been banned. Maybe the fact that no one on this thread (with one terse exception) agreed with you is your problem, but disagreeing with you does not mean anyone interfered with your ability to discuss whatever you chose to discuss.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dtexdem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-21-12 01:26 PM
Response to Original message
38. No real issue for me. I have to hold my nose and vote for him.
And, yes, he's horrible in all the ways noted.
The issue is how much worse the opposition is.
The problem with disparaging lesser-of-two-evils voting is that it doesn't account for how-much more evil the greater of two evils sometimes is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-21-12 04:35 PM
Response to Reply #38
42. Yes, but
The problem with NOT disparaging the lesser of two evils is that we thereby fail to exert an effect to make them move in the right direction, rather than continuing in the wrong direction.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mercymechap Donating Member (74 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-21-12 06:58 PM
Response to Reply #42
51. You must really be naive, to think that Obama or anyone
in the Democratic party that has the ability to make change is going to read your post and say "Ah, we need to move more to the left, we have a discontented "Time for change" democrat we must take care of! LOL!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-21-12 10:00 PM
Response to Reply #51
54. If enough people expressed their displeasure with Obama for his rightward leanings
he would change his behavior and move left.

Anyhow, if you think that our posts have no potential to have a political effect, then why are you so upset about my post?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jakes Progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-21-12 10:01 PM
Response to Reply #54
55. Now now. Don't go confusing things with logic and thinking.
It's not fair to some, what with their knees all jerked up in a knot like that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mercymechap Donating Member (74 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-22-12 09:46 PM
Response to Reply #54
77. Perhaps, but they will have more of an impact if they are
directed where they will be heard by those who can make a difference. I didn't say that the complaints posted here against Obama didn't have political effect potential, I said they wouldn't be seen by those who can make a difference. They do have the potential to affect politically, because there may be people on these forums who may be undecided about Obama, read his comments and believe everything negative that he has said and decide not to vote for him.

That is every person's choice, but I would think that on a forum that calls itself Democratic Underground, that the effort would be to bring people to vote for Obama, not to cause them to wonder if that is the right thing. Romney is the only alternative we have, and believe me, Obama, with all his faults is much, much better than Romney and his lies.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madfloridian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-22-12 10:28 PM
Response to Reply #77
80. Everything is not about Obama. Even in an election year.
Public education is being destroyed so quickly that many fear there will be no going back. He and Arne Duncan do not listen to the educators, they only listen to those who want schools to be profitable to the private sector.

Teachers' careers are being ruined, they are being fired illegally in many cases.

And we are supposed to just take it without speaking out?

I can't do that anymore.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jakes Progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-21-12 10:13 PM
Response to Reply #51
56. You must really be cynical to think that people don't make a difference.
If you don't, then why work for change?

You think small. I'll do it slowly. Would the corporate whores in the party change for Time for Change? Hell no. They ran that trial balloon. They told the left to shut up. Then people like you cheered them for doing so. Instead of joining TFC and the others who tried to hold the people we elected to their promises and potential, the fans and acolytes fell all over themselves to genuflect and grovel shouting that the "professional left" was wrong, that what the country needed was more third way, more conservative Democrats. You can't blame Obama and the other professional politicians. They saw the writing on the forum - they could pocket corporate money and sell out the left without worry. They had the backing of a fan club. Who needs principles. It would take a truly great statesman to hold to noble convictions in that case. And we have a dearth of great statesmen.

No the fault lies with the enablers in the party who either kept their mouth shut while teachers and unions were bullied so that corporations could get their mitts on the education purse. They would even spout formerly right-wing only arguments to support extending bush era surveillance and adding execution without trial for citizens to cheney's torture policies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mercymechap Donating Member (74 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-22-12 09:57 PM
Response to Reply #56
78. You really are stretching yourself thin when you accuse me
of being an enabler and keeping my mouth shut. My complaints aren't presented in a manner that might make someone ponder whether or not it is a good idea to vote for Obama, nor are they wasted in a place where they will not have any effect. Sure it is okay for Democrats to express their disappointment that Obama hasn't done everything he promised he would do or the things that we consider important to ourselves personally. But, not to evaluate the circumstances that Obama faces is pure ignorant. Obama has a Republican led House who has vowed to oppose him on everything that he wants to do. So, how in hell is he supposed to work around that, when he even has Democrats in Congress that go against him? Republicans use that as a means to tell people just how weak and dumb the Democratic party is and more and more we are losing to them. That Obama was able to raise so much money to get elected was a lesson for them, and now the wealthiest of Republicans (Koch brothers) have decided they will spend whatever it takes to get more Republicans elected.

So, you believe that by dissing Obama and airing your disappointments on a forum where potential voters may be reading your negative comments is going to make our situation better? All it will do is insure that more Republicans get elected, and then all our Democratic representatives will be kowtowing to them, and if you think that things are bad now, just imagine a world where the Bachmanns, Santorums, Palins, and Scott Walker reign.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jakes Progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-25-12 11:26 PM
Response to Reply #78
88. Puh-leese
Not the old "Obama is a helpless tool of the Congress" defense again. Was he a helpless tool when he had both houses? If he can't get stuff done, then just maybe he wasn't the man for the job. Or maybe, he just didn't really want to get stuff done. Either he can't stand up to republican asshats or he sort of agrees with them on some things. He certainly buys into their education program. He certainly buys into their spying on us for our own good. He certainly buys into their idea that we should protect the drug companies and their profits and that we shouldn't have a single payer system. (Check the recently released emails).

Or maybe he would like to run a progressive agenda but just doesn't have the skills.

Airing your principle-free support is being an enabler. Can you point me to posts where you took Obama to task and called him out on his ineptitude or right-wing capitulation? I can show you the posts I put up praising his progressive actions. All of the fan-boy support without condition was a big part of convincing his political team that they could and should go after the left with name-calling attacks. You just didn't believe him when he told you he wanted you to tell him when he strayed from the right path. He needed fan people to love him when he gave in, those people needed a hero. It's called co-dependency.

I voted for Obama. I spent hundreds of hours campaigning for him. I get to say what I think about his performance. If you hire a guy to do a job and he doesn't do it very well, he won't get better if you never tell him you want him to do so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-22-12 04:33 AM
Response to Reply #51
66. You are calling Time for Change naive? LOL!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mercymechap Donating Member (74 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-21-12 06:39 PM
Response to Reply #38
48. I will have to give you credit for at least being honest.
Most of the other posters are claiming that they are not suggesting that anyone vote for a Republican, but they have no explanation for defending a thread with a title "time for a change" and statements in his OP such as "why I have trouble supporting Obama".

Like I said to one of them, I would vote for the worst Democrat before I would vote for the best Republican, because their ideology is all warped up. As a woman I take exception to all the attacks they have been casting toward women not to mention all the racist remarks against blacks they make and defend.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-22-12 04:34 AM
Response to Reply #48
67. You think that people who believe Obama is too far to the right will vote Republican?
No words for that kind of thought process. None.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mercymechap Donating Member (74 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-22-12 10:02 PM
Response to Reply #67
79. Now, where did I even say that?
Perhaps I was spot on when I thought there might be a comprehension problem. I think that people that are pondering where voting for Obama may not be the right thing are only helping the Republicans. You don't have to cast a vote for Romney to get him elected, just continue your dissing of Obama and suggesting to people that Obama hasn't kept his promises, hasn't done anything and isn't worthy of being president - that more or less will insure a Romney win.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-23-12 05:26 PM
Response to Reply #79
85. In the post to which I replied.
Edited on Sat Jun-23-12 05:47 PM by No Elephants
"just continue your dissing of Obama and suggesting to people that Obama hasn't kept his promises, hasn't done anything and isn't worthy of being president"

And I never said or suggested a single one of those things.

I posted that Obama had taken Bush's position on a number of issues and gone further right than any of his predecssors on certain others, both of which statements are factually accurate. Too bad you react as you do to factual statements and find it necessary to misrepresent them.


You have nerve acccusing anyone else of having a reading comprehension problem and accuses you of saying things you never said.

Also, you can stop explaining to me in every post te effect of a vote for a third Party candidate or not voting. I laid that out all the way back in Reply 9. However, you have yet to grasp the point that Time for Change made in the OP--that in a decidedly blue state, TFC;s vote=-HOWEVER HE ULTIMATELY DECIDES TO VOTE--willo not affect the electoral vote and, in the case of Presidential elections, electoral votes are all that matter.

The same is true of a decidely red state. Dtexdem could vote forty time for Obama or for a third party candidate and it won't matter. Texas's electoral votes are going to Romney anyway.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-22-12 04:30 AM
Response to Reply #38
65. Romney was my Governor. Didn't like him. Still don't. But I doubt he did
any damage to my party or any permanent or irreversible damage to my state. (That said, I must say that he had a very Democratic legislature. On the other hand, despite the hype, the Massachusetts state legislature certainly has it share of DINOs and its share and then some of folks who put their own future re-election above bucking what seemed to be a popular Governor.)

Bottom line, DUers can go just so far in a discussion about voting and the relative shortcomings of different votes without getting banned.

However--and most respectfully--I don't think the issue is as you have framed it.

If that were all that were involved, I don't think this thread would have been started or generated controversy because I think we all agree that some Republicans are a lot worse than some Democrats.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-22-12 08:25 AM
Response to Reply #65
71. Too late to edit, but, just for clarification, I never voted for Romney and will not be voting for
him in 2012. Nor do I recommend that anyone vote for Romney in 2012. Or ever.

I would think that this would be obvious because 100% of my posts have been clearly left of center. However, it is hard to underestimate intelligence sometimes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slipslidingaway Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-22-12 12:08 AM
Response to Original message
57. As always a K&R for your thought provoking posts TFC ...
honestly I've been too busy frequenting the MDS, Leukemia and bone marrow transplant forums for almost two years to pay much attention to the current team scores.





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-22-12 04:49 AM
Response to Original message
68. Your OP is well researched, well analyzed and well presented. It deserved responses
Edited on Fri Jun-22-12 05:22 AM by No Elephants
that at least aspired to those same qualities.

It's too bad that the quality of the thread devolved as it did. On the other hand, a candid intellectual discussion of the OP that does not violate DU rules might be challenging.

I know a lot of lifelong Democrats in Massachusetts, New York and New Jersey who will also have great difficulty voting for Obama.

Some Democrats I know will hold their respective noses and vote for him anyway; some, especially those in Massachusetts, her home state, will vote for Jill Stein (assuming she gets the nomination); and some will not vote at all, at least at the top of the ticket.

None of my disenchanted Democratic friends plan to vote for Romney. (I don't know what this says about me or about Boston, but I don't have any Republican friends, though I do have a nephew whom I love with all my heart who is a Republican).

As with Maryland, if the people I have referred to cause Obama to lose the electoral votes of Massachusetts, New York or New Jersey, then Obama was never going to win the election anyway. (And I guess, if voting for Obama in Texas would cause him to win Texas, maybe he didn't need that vote anyway?)

So, will my friends who intend to vote for Stein have thrown away their votes if they vote for Stein?

To be totally honest, I have no idea if they will or not.

Given that New Jersey, New York and Massachusetts are almost 100% likely to go for Obama, will they throw their vote away no matter whom they vote for? I honestly don't know that, either.

Bottom line: Obama will win this election.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemReadingDU Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-23-12 06:04 AM
Response to Original message
81. Glad you are posting again!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-27-12 12:47 PM
Response to Original message
91. Thanks for this informative and timely essay.
Edited on Wed Jun-27-12 12:48 PM by Lasher
Obama's thankfully failed Grand Deal included a two year increase in the Medicare eligibility age and a $200 billion cut to Social Security benefits. This alone was a colossal betrayal of the Democratic Party base. I'm going to vote for Obama again this November because Romney is even worse but I'm afraid when all the results are in, it will be time for Obama to eat his peas.
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 Thu Jul 31st 2014, 05:26 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion 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