Call me unsensible, a dreamer, or even childish all you want, but

[white_wolf]

I would much rather have a president and congress that fights for my ideas as hard and as long as they can, than a president and congress that sells me under the bus in the name of compromise. I'm tired of being betrayed and having politicians embrace right wing reactionary ideas in the name of moderation and compromise. As Thomas Pain said "A thing moderately good is not so good as it ought to be. Moderation in temper is always a virtue; but moderation in principle is always a vice."

[JuniperLea]

1. If only we had a President...

And a Congress who did everything everyone wanted them to do... sigh... wake me when the dream is over.

[white_wolf]

4. Actually, I didn't even say they had to succeed in doing what I wanted,

but they could at least fight for what is right.

[Donnachaidh]

45. that is what is particularly galling, isn't it?

We were sold on Obama being the candidate of *change*. And we were told he would fight for us. Instead, we get a capitulater -- someone who is spending more time trying to figure out what can be given to the pukes even before negotiations begin!

Someone needs to tell him you don't bring cookies and milk to a street fight. You can expect to have your ass soundly whooped if you do.

[JuniperLea]

62. "what is right" has become subjective...

That's the problem.

[bobbolink]

48. If YOUR life was on the line, maybe you wouldn't find it so entertaining to judge others.

[FiveGoodMen]

2. I'm with you.

Giving away our country just because somebody really, really wants to take it...

That's what compromise with the pukes really is.

And it's nuts to do that.

Ever.

[Vincardog]

3. What white_wolf said.

[leftstreet]

5. It's only 'unsensible' to think that ANY politician would fight for your ideas

unless you're really, really young still

[woo me with science]

6. I am sick to death of the ridiculous argument that

because a President acccomplishes SOMETHING, then it is verboten to criticize something else he does, because we have to compromise or because it all evens out, or some such rot.

Some core Democratic values must be preserved. Defense of the poor and vulnerable. Protection of the social safety net.

These things aren't just one more piece of legislation to throw into the mix and who cares which side of the compromise they fall on, as long as there's a compromise?

What have people done with their core Democratic values? Where is the line in the sand? Does it even exist anymore for the Democratic Party?

[patrice]

10. Not everyone who supports this administration is saying that. & The converse of your statement is

true too.

[Cleita]

7. You are right. Our last five Presidents have allowed

and are allowing the policies and institutions that made America great to be eroded and reversed now to the point that we are no different than our former enemies Soviet Russia and China. The most egregious destruction was to our press and news outlets. I remember when the Eastern bloc Soviet nations had to listen to voice of America to get news and the truth. Now we have to stream Al Jazeera and read wikileaks on line to do the same.

[SDuderstadt]

8. "we are no different than our former enemies Soviet Russia and China"

Oh, please.

[patrice]

9. You have the right to determine that for yourself, but not for others, especially when

instead of picking functionally effective battles-for-principle, our "warriors" go charging into an ambush that drives them off a precipice to crash in a bloody heap at the bottom, so that our battle-for-principle has to start from scratch again and again, that is, IF we can find some new "warriors" each time the previous batch falls for new sucker-punches.

[white_wolf]

14. Don't you think that single-payer or at the very least a

pubic option is worth at least fighting for?

[patrice]

33. Absolutely! The question is how to do that effectively, without getting suckered (again)

and/or go charging off that cliff.

Senator Bernie Sanders says this IS possible by building on ACA 2010 and moving strategically toward Medicare for All. My guess is that begins with cleaning up Medicare to reduce authentic fraud, waste, and abuse. For example, how many people are aware that primarily Medicare funded resources can be administered by not-for-profits who, through development & other fund raising, create really fat salaries (and other kinds of deals) for some people who have little or nothing to do with providing the actual care that Medicare is paying for. Those not-for-profits would NOT be able to raise that money, and those boards would not be getting tax deductions for their "charitable" time, if it weren't for Medicare, but Medicare has absolutely no control over the not-for-profit's relationship to the "health" "care" resource, except if it were to affect the care and, yet, believe me, there's LOTS of people in this country making really good consultant fees advising such organizations on how to engineer Risk Management in such a way as to make Medicare make the not-for-profits look good to the development people and their funding sources, including all kinds of ways to fudge Medicare surveys.

[damntexdem]

11. But you're not the only one.

[tnlefty]

16. You beat me to it!

Dammit! lol

[polichick]

12. Me too.

[apples and oranges]

13. What are you doing to change things?

Besides whining?

[white_wolf]

15. Giving what little money I can spare to real progessive canidates.

Aside from that there isn't much I can do at this time, but thanks for the attack.

[apples and oranges]

17. I don't think money is the answer. Look at what was accomplished in Wisconsin

in a very short period of time, with very little money. Now, the rethugs did manage to steal the election anyway, but what if we did that nationwide? They can't steal every election!

[white_wolf]

19. I don't think it is either, but

it really is all I can do at this time. No one in my area is a progressive their all reactionary right wingers.

[patrice]

41. Writing letters? Making phone calls? Attending hearings? Using all types of social media?

Talking politely about the issues with those around you? Joining Democracy for America? Advocating for Social/Economic Justice in your church? Watching for the closest national or regional demonstration and attending it/them? . . . ?

[patrice]

46. As long as it is always someone else who is supposed to ________________,

so that one can then _________________, there's always going to be a problem with whatever someone else is doing.

[woo me with science]

24. People are being systematically impoverished.

Until very recently, I think a lot of people were able to convince themselves that this was a temporary situation related to the poor economy. Hopefully Wisconsin is part of the wake-up call that opens people's eyes to the need to come together and protest what is being done to us as a country.

[bobbolink]

49. Yeah, what happened to poor people didn't matter, because it was "THEM".

[woo me with science]

22. I know a lot of people who are focusing their energies down ballot now,

supporting lower-level candidates who will defend liberal policies.

It's a good strategy, as long as you explain to the top exactly why you are doing it.

[Scuba]

18. I'd rather die on my feet than live on my knees. n/t

[SDuderstadt]

20. I'd rather live on...

my feet.

[white_wolf]

21. Yes, well the way things are going in this country

your only choices may soon be living on your knees or dying on your feet, unless your one of the Oligarchs, in which case things will be great for you.

[SDuderstadt]

23. Oh, Jesus...

do you ever get tired of melodrama?

Again, why aren't Olbermann, Maddow or Schultz echoing your claims?

[white_wolf]

25. As much as I like all three of those,

they aren't in any financial danger. They are fairly well off. Oh and its not melodrama when it is the truth. Just keep thinking it can't happen here.

[SDuderstadt]

28. Dude...

everytime I walk outside, I marvel at the fact I can make it to my car without being picked up for questioning.

Your overheated overgeneralizations don't help progressivism. Beyond that, do you really think someone like Rachel Maddow wouldn't care about these issues no matter how much she makes? Please.

[white_wolf]

31. First of all, quit with the Dude comments. It sounds childish

and condescending. Also, seeing as how a lot of progressives agree with me, than am how do you know I'm wrong on this?

[SDuderstadt]

35. Dude...

it is a common and non-offensive way to adress people. See the many examples on DU. It also does not violate DU rules.

As to your second claim, do you really think your anecdotal observations really mean anything with respect to progressivism?

[patrice]

50. Numbers are what make things right or wrong? That's not terribly Liberal of you.

[patrice]

58. Are you aware how this stuff about "Dude" is kind of an odd thing for a Liberal to say?

Not that, being a Liberal, one might not think it, just more that a Liberal wouldn't usually impose that feeling on someone else, for the same reason that we also don't usually get on folks for cussing.

[patrice]

53. That's pretty much guaranteed if enough of us wait until daddy gets it perfect before we

commit to what we say are our own values.

[JoePhilly]

26. Spend less time complaining about Obama and go make this candidate

you desire.

DU is packed with unhappy folks who want some other choice. If they spent half as much time trying to find that person, they might exist by now.

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

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

[patrice]

43. 1++++++++++++

[Search4Justice]

27. I agree, I'm tired of limp noodle..

... gutless wonders turning our once strong, vibrant, for We the People Democratic Party into a laughing stock. If I want Republican ideas put into law, I'll vote for those assholes. Seems now, it's what we get no matter who the heck we vote for.

[white_wolf]

29. I wonder if all progressives just left the party at once and

voted for progressive candidates such as the Greens, if it would wake the Dems up?

[SDuderstadt]

30. No...

it would ensure the GOP of total victory.

Really stupid "strategy".

[Search4Justice]

38. I don't pretend to speak for ..

.. any Progressive besides myself, but in my case, unless there is some real changes made in the way this administration proceeds, Obama will not have earned my vote, let alone my support. I will never again in my life vote for the lesser of two bad choices. I detest Republican Light as much or more the real thing.

[patrice]

51. Some of us think that is a very unrealistic "understanding" of how things work, some of us such as

Howard Dean, who has been saying the only effective change is from the bottom up since 2004.

We got the best President THIS system has to offer, because it is not a from-the-bottom-up system.

[Search4Justice]

61. I "understand" that ..

.. "some of us" like to believe they are more knowledgeable than anyone who doesn't agree with them. I also "understand" that it really isn't so. I don't care much for implied insults or being talked down to and "understand" that trying to engage in conversation with "some of us" is unproductive.

[patrice]

47. I was guessing that was in there somewhere. Please respond to what would FIRST happen:

at least 8 years of royal Republican reign with all of the pain and destruction they will deal to those who have already been hurt most, have already been handicapped most, by what we have become. All okay with you?

[patrice]

54. Please give us a plausible scenario in which the Greens can deliver on our national issues in, say,

the next 10-20 years . . . or whatever time frame you find plausible. Just guess if you wish.

[bobbolink]

59. The Greens have no interest in poverty. I am beyond working for or even voting for anyone

who can't be bothered with poverty!

I WILL vote my best interest!

[patrice]

60. Oh, I know a few Greens who are around the Quakers who are serious about poverty. Others are

pretty comfortable, so the idea of Revolution doesn't mean the same thing to them that it does to some of us.

Actually, I really DO welcome ALL of us to the effort, but we need to start by being honest about ourselves and the process and what COULD happen to people who never had, and maybe never will have, a chance to decide for themselves whether the price they will pay for "change" is okay or not. This is why we must start at the bottom, instead of bitching about Obama ALL of the time and then using that to cop out on our responsibilities to one another.

:hug: bobbolink! :hug:
(I've always loved your screen name. It makes me think of being a kid out on the prairie somewhere listening to the birds and the south wind!)

[I Drink Water]

32. I don't mind moderation and compromise, but not with this vile and wretched GOP

You can't win with these extremists who's agenda is destructive to our national well being.

[Safetykitten]

34. Agree, and this "entitlement" shit. Societies take care of their own and that's

what a great one does. Tired of this "well we HAVE to take care of the less fortunate" said with derision.

[patrice]

56. Agree!! Noblese oblige (the obligations of nobility) makes me want to puke and yet that's the sum

total of the Republican prescription based on Tax Cuts for the wealthy.

[cali]

36. gee how original. I think everyone wants that.

[provis99]

39. waaaahh! I want a pony! Waaahhh!

just anticipating the Obama apologists.

[patrice]

44. Just because some people observe that other people want things to appear out of nowhere, so that

they can THEN sign on, rather than committing to the work of creating those things themselves, does not mean that such observations are NECESSARILY Obama apologies, some are, some are not, because some people actually do want daddy to deliver the ponies. Your blanket stereotype could be evidence of prejudice against Obama and in favor of the destruction of things that will hurt lots of people.

[patrice]

40. What is at dispute here is the definition of the word "fight". Assumptions, such as,

"If it isn't ________________, it isn't fighting" are being made on fractionally minute information at best.

[white_wolf]

55. Fighting would entail not making backroom deals with insurance companies

and getting rid of the public option and single payer, before it was even debated in Congress.

[patrice]

57. Agree. And what all did you do during those debates? Wait? And . . .

What is your estimate of the effect of the size, ownership, and composition of Bush's Derivative Crash in 2008 had upon what we have seen thus far of the Obama administration and since we ARE talking about money, I hope you include the influence of conventional campaign finance in those effects.

[patrice]

42. Apparently, from some answers in this thread, what is also at dispute here is who is supposed to

do, and how much of, the "fighting".

[Imagevision]

52. Have a president and congress that fights for your ideas? And you still believe in Santa...