Please take 5 minutes to read an incredible Post

[samplegirl]

Last edited Mon Mar 31, 2014, 07:08 PM - Edit history (1)

From a fellow D.U.er

What did you say, history? Could you repeat yourself? [View all]

I don't do much of my driving staring into the rear view mirror. It's better to look far down the road, but sometimes danger may approach from that runaway semi I safely passed miles ago, and it's good to warn those ahead of the impending peril bearing down on them. Objects in the mirror are, after all, closer than they appear.

Looking back on my gratefully long trip through life, I recall the Lyndon Johnson years. I was young draft bait as he neared the end of his tenure and absolutely loathed the man. I was one of those motivated teens chanting "hey hey LBJ, how many kids did you kill today" in the public square. It was only decades later that I learned of the great legislation he was signing with his right hand, even as I envisioned him using his left to pile up my classmates like so much cord wood. He passed most of these good deeds while I was an adolescent and preoccupied with my discovery of sex, drugs, and rock & roll, but I suddenly found myself more politically aware as I became old enough to be sent off to war.

I can assure with first hand knowledge that LBJ was not a popular president, to say the least. Of course, the reasons for this disapproval varied greatly, the left generally for the war, and the right for his "Great Society" that brought about Medicare and equal rights, but the disdain was indeed universal. I don't know for sure how the election in '68 would have gone if he decided to run for re-election, but I think he read the writing on the wall correctly and stepped down. I believe one of the prime reasons Nixon entered the Oval Office that year was a combination of the negative perception that democrats were inept nanny-state spendthrifts and Nixon's spurious promise to end the war. I proudly cast my very first presidential vote for George McGovern in 1972 in a fruitless effort to deny Nixon his woefully fated second term.

That was the same year I began what would become a 30 year union career on an assembly line at GM, and it was the next election cycle when I did my part to seat a young Jimmy Carter into office. I have to break it to many here that Carter was also not the respected sage that he's seen as today. The disdain for Carter was loud and widespread. Back then we didn't have the internet, of course, our forum was the break room and the bar across the street from the plant was our Facebook.

It was there that democrats - good union democrats - would pound the lunch table between bites of their McDLT, or order up a round of the new Michelobs at the local bar and carp about how the peanut farmer was taking us down. He was perceived as being weak on foreign policy, what with the Iranian hostage crisis, and incapable of handling the economy, considering our cheapest cars were quickly approaching the $10,000 mark, a price point that precluded many of us from buying our own product.

The vocal dissenters were adamant that being told to turn down our thermostats by some yokel in a dorky sweater was the end of the American dream. Of course I now realize these were the tantrums of spoiled baby boomers who grew up with color TVs, Sansui stereos, and a new sedan in the garage every two years. They felt deeply slighted by the Carter administration and a declining middle class that was beyond his control by that time.

Those malcontents at the time never said it was time to vote for a republican - they'd never say that - but the sentiment was one for a change. It's now that I will make a confession I seldom admit to: I bought into this hype back then, and in 1980 my vote helped elect a good looking charismatic and glib Ronald Reagan. Within the next two years, especially after that POS declared war on organized labor, I understood that I made a horrible mistake, and vowed to never be duped by the whining opinions of chronic complainers again.

When I read a post now in DU that carps outrageously about how Obama isn't the president we expected, those not so distant memories flood back to me. No one here is saying that we should elect a republican in 2016 of course, but the message often is that Obama, and democrats in general, are scarcely better. I'm reading that failure to close Gitmo is akin to burning the Bill of Rights, and his lack of Wall Street oversight is tantamount to economic malfeasance. I hear complaints that drone attacks are as much a horrendous war crime as his reluctance to shut down the Keystone pipeline is purposeful environmental sabotage. The bottom line is always, and once again, that we're disillusioned and need change.

I pretty sure no one here is going to turn to the GOP in 2016, but I'm certain the same people who express such disdain here do the same elsewhere. Perhaps it's complaints at the Thanksgiving table with extended family members, or to fellow drinkers at the local watering hole, or even on other websites in some cases, but the message that we aren't happy with Obama does get out. In a rare political discussion with my conservative cousin a couple months ago, she pointed out that "even democrats are sorry they voted for this president". Though I know it's not for the reasons she assumed, I unfortunately have to give her that technical point now, don't I?

I don't remember now who the tools were that propagated the perception to me that Jimmy Carter was an ineffectually lame goofball of a president and helped usher in the era of Ronald Reagan 30 years ago, but if a young energetic face like Paul Ryan or (shudder) Ted Cruz takes the oath in 2017, the blame will be partly on those who worked five days a week slamming their fist and exclaiming to the electorate, the tavern, and yes, DU, what a disappointing failure Obama was to them.

Maybe decades from now, Obama will be hawking his own 38th book with whoever takes over for Jimmy Fallon's Tonight Show, and we can all come here to DU XII to fawn about how he accomplished so much good in spite of such fervent opposition. From the Lily Ledbetter Act and the Financial Protection Agency to the genesis of healthcare reform and raising the minimum wage, we will finally agree that these were the good old days. Our perception of the president has always had consequences, and that often changes when we're driving down a newly pot-holed road and see him in the rear view mirror.

-JohnnyRingo







http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4755492


36

[monmouth3]

1. I read this yesterday and loved it...K&R.

[Le Taz Hot]

2. There's 5 minutes of my life I'll never get back.

Translation: Support Democrats with Blind Loyalty.

[randome]

4. Support the best candidate.

'Best' meaning someone who has a chance. Right now that's Obama. No one else has a chance against the obstructionist House. In fact, I'd say that anyone else would have accomplished less than Obama.

It's not fair but it's reality. Do you think Warren or Sanders would get further than Obama?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Treat your body like a machine. Your mind like a castle.[/center][/font][hr]

[Le Taz Hot]

7. Oh, I am.

CA-21 is in play with the bluest Blue Dog Democrat that can come out of the bowels of the DNC but it's a chance to take a seat from the Republicans so I'll work for her campaign even though, at the moment, her "platform" consists of:

1) I'm not a Republican
2) Give me money

Not a lot to get inspired about.

As for Obama, he has NO chance to change anything because he's shown nothing but weakness with the Republicans (his incessant willingness to compromise BEFORE he even gets to the table) and he has NO credibility with those of us who expect a Democrat to hold Democratic values. That ship has already sailed. So, seeing as how I can't do anything about him and seeing as how he represents almost none of my own values, I'll put my efforts into supporting a mediocre, Blue Dog candidate that has a chance of taking a seat away from the Republicans. If she gets elected, the next election (2016) will be about finding a REAL Democrat to replace her.

[randome]

12. So you're supporting your CA-21 candidate with blind loyalty.

Actually, I don't believe that of you but you have to admit there's a bit of a disconnect there.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Precision and concision. That's the game.[/center][/font][hr]

[Le Taz Hot]

15. THAT'S what you got out of that post?

Come on, you've been reading too many of your compadre's posts. I'm not blindly supporting anything, as I said, she's a Blue Dog and I HATE HATE Blue Dogs. BUT the current Tea Party jerkoff who has the seat needs to go. He holds a seat in which the numerical majority are Hispanics yet he refuses to meet with Hispanic groups. DUMB! Renteria is a local and is currently shoring up support within the Hispanic community which is VITAL to winning any seat here. And as I said, as soon as she wins the seat in 2014 I'm going to work on moving her ass out and replace her with a REAL Democrat.

[westerebus]

37. I like the way you think. n/t

[NBachers]

147. I've donated to Amanda Renteria. I'd look forward to her being in the House.

And I'll be interested in following what she does if she gets in.

[cheapdate]

159. I got the exact same thing. I don't see how one could not.

samplegirl is little more than an automaton for taking a long-term view and a historical perspective, whereas your decision was strategic and guided by intellect. You don't even see it a little?

[treestar]

56. He's "weak" because of the R House

How do you get around the fact they won the House in 2010 and 2012? When they have the House, they will pass bills they like. Check Article I of the Constitution. There is no one so "strong" they can get the opposition to do what they want when they are in the majority.

[quakerboy]

155. And in 08?

How does that fit that to your theory?

I think there's a strong argument that what happened between the 2008 election and the 2010 election had a significant hand in the results of the 2010 and 2012 elections. Imagine what could have been if the combined democrats of the house, senate, and the president had all united and gotten it done in 2009. Imagine what could have been different if Democrats had arrived at the 2010 elections covered in a cloud of populist victories, rather than a perception of gridlock and controversy.

I challenge you to think about what could have been, and then not be a bit unhappy about how things have gone instead.

[NYC_SKP]

71. CA 21 is not like the others. Valadao reminds me of our Richard Pombo, who was tossed.

It's that middle of nowhere in the valley that's all agribusiness and some fossil fuel operations, I believe. I spent high school summers working in Coalinga.

Valadao believes in clean coal, opposes high speed rail, he's a landowner and developer's wet dream.

Amanda Renteria has an impressive record, seems a pretty DC insider past, but I don't see that much about her positions on things, except that her page says she's "pro growth". http://www.amandarenteria.com/about

But I'm with you, better her than Valadao.

How do you feel about John Hernandez? http://www.johnhernandezforcongress.com/positions

[Le Taz Hot]

75. I didn't even know he was running again.

Didn't he got his bootie kicked by Valadeo the last time out? Iirc, it was a pretty serious ass-kicking and that was during a presidential election year.

And I agree with you about Renteria. I've sent three different letters to her campaign asking her to submit position papers. So far, the only thing I've gotten back is: 1) I'm not a Republican and 2) Give me money. Frustrating as hell. BUT I do see her courting the Hispanic groups and I don't see that from Hernandez and courting Hispanic groups is vital in this area.

Suzanna Marrero-Aguilera (D) is running in CA-22 (my district) but so far she's raised 0$ compared with Nunes' over a million. I think she's ANOTHER sacrifice candidate. Pisses me off to no end. I contacted her campaign as well and got nothing back, not even an e-mail.

And they wonder why it's so hard to get Democrats to win in the Valley. Too often it's because they don't compete.

[NYC_SKP]

77. I read of a recent poll putting him ahead of Renteria. Maybe he's learned a lesson.

He has a lot of support, here for example: http://fresnostonewalldemocrats.org/wordpress/?m=201403

The poll I mentioned: 25% to her 13%
; http://www.hanfordsentinel.com/news/local/hernandez-congressional-campaign-gets-boost-from-poll/article_16332ce6-a0c8-11e3-afd8-001a4bcf887a.html

And he's the only one supporting high speed rail. Former CEO of the Hispanic Chamber.

I haven't read anything yet that I don't like, except that his campaign hasn't been processing their financial paperwork in a timely way.

I think he'd get my vote in the primary. The district came out for Obama last election, the votes are there.

[Maraya1969]

137. "Our number 1 priority is to make Barack Obama a one term president"

But hey, you know he has control over congress and the Ted Cruzes and how he can make them do what he wants all the time. And how they have never blocked every single jobs bill and how they never voted to block Obama's bill to tax companies who ship jobs overseas.

And yes he has shown nothing but weakness and that is why today is the deadline for the first insurance reform in our history and millions of people now have health care. But he is just so damned weak. And he has NO credibility especially since he bailed out the car industry and saved thousands of jobs and they are stronger than ever. What a jerk!

And what a wuss to end the war in Iraq, set the end of the war in Afghanistan in 2014 and kill Osama Bin Laden. And my God the Used car salesman even ended "don't act don't tell"

Do I really need to add the sarcasm light or are you getting my drift?

Do us all a favor and STFU so we can win back congress, keep the Senate and get another Dem for the Presidency. You are making the situation worse. I hope you can understand that but I fear you won't. Because your type never seems to get the message.

[Le Taz Hot]

139. Well, aren't you just the little internet bad-ass.

STFU? Nope. Don't think I will.

Next time, try arguing your point without the personal attacks. Makes you look unstable, know what I mean?

[Maraya1969]

169. Your posts make you look uninformed. eom

[Ms. Toad]

14. Must be in a time warp....I thought this was 2014

Last I checked, Obama is done being a candidate.

[randome]

17. Candidate/representative/politician/whatever.

Regardless, why all this time and energy spent on tearing down Obama if he has nothing further to do?

The answer is he's the best shot we have at getting anything done in the next 2 1/2 years. Not liking that prospect won't make it go away.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Precision and concision. That's the game.[/center][/font][hr]

[Sarah Ibarruri]

118. I agree. I care about who CAN get there, and who can get some things done versus

someone who CAN'T get there, and because of that, won't get anything done.

[ljm2002]

129. Obama is a candidate?

Wow, you learn something new every day on DU.

[Glitterati]

11. Agree.

Translation: We should each become the Democratic version of Eric Erickson of Redstate or a Democratic Freeper.

No thanks.

[Sheepshank]

97. A well seasoned voter, posts a well thought out string of events

and cites real life examples. Writes out the experiences and the efforts over the years.

And then response #11, one liner tripe gets thrown in there. No examples, no clarification, just made up shit.

Too bad really.

[Glitterati]

103. ROFL! Hit home, I guess

Seriously, MY real life examples are no more valuable than this persons. They mean NOTHING to you or anyone else but ME.

I was there during this same period. Hell, I was in Chicago during the Democratic convention. Got gassed, got beat by cops. So the hell WHAT?

Those experiences mean absolutely nothing to the rest of you and I don't post them to mislead others.

As said below, this OP is nothing more than a calculation to mislead anyone who reads it.

[ProSense]

13. That is not the gist of the post.

If this were a total anti-Obama screed, like the current one climbing the Greatest Page, it would be fine with some.

[Le Taz Hot]

16. Don't pout, ProSense,

it'll give you wrinkles.

[ProSense]

19. LOL! See your initial comment.

Apparently, you only want the anti-Obama stuff to exist.

[Le Taz Hot]

20. You've no idea what I want.

That's what blind loyalty does to you, it makes you incapable of independent thought. And gives you wrinkles.

[ProSense]

23. Yes, I do

"You've no idea what I want. That's what blind loyalty does to you, it makes you incapable of independent thought. And gives you wrinkles."

You want an OP that isn't anti-Obama to be seen as promoting "blind loyalty."

[Le Taz Hot]

26. And then there's the rest of us who are wholly

capable of other than binary thinking.

I'm bored now. Take a nap. Enjoy life.

[ProSense]

28. "Binary thinking"?

You're the one equating the OP with "blind loyalty" because it isn't anti-Obama.

[Sheepshank]

62. yeah...I think Pro Sense is right there ^^^^^

as passionate as you are about this one topic, you tend to see everything through that one filter and it just doesn't apply in this case.

And you are just not correct with using that filter on this OP.

[gtar100]

39. Seriously, that's what you got from this post?

There's some history lessons in here I can attest to as being spot on truth. What I like best about the Democratic Party is that it does nuance. Life does nuance, the world and people are in full technicolor. Democrats revel in nuance and diversity ; we don't shrink away from it. Republicans do black and white, they are reactionary, and serve up platitudes for solutions as they screw this country up.

But I'll be damned... it seems we haven't learned from history and are prepared to throw it all away again because of our discontent and our disappointment and give control back to a bunch of idiot republicans because whether we like it or not they are the only other alternative in our messed up system.

I'm not calling for blind following... and I didn't get that from the OP either. But we as Democrats need to embrace this great challenge and not throw out the baby with the bathwater... or worse, throw out the baby and keep the bathwater. Or in other words, give the reigns of power in this country to a bunch filthy, corrupt, self-serving, careless, racist republicans.

For me, it's absolutely clear that the greater enemy that will bring down this country is the repugnant Republican party. I've not agreed with Obama on everything - strongly disagreed - but that does not take away one iota of the good legislation and executive orders he's put in place in the face of *unprecedented* opposition. Repeat that - *unprecedented* opposition.

The real problems in this country are caused by the repukes, the repugnants, the tea baggers, the vile, filthy GOP... republicans. They have worked hard to earn that reputation, let's let them own it and never let your friends forget it lest they weasel themselves back into power and do worse than what George Bush, Dick Cheney, and all those cast of criminals did to this country? So if you're disappointed in Obama, just look what's waiting in the wings to take over. You'll be pining for your disappointment after the tea baggers get their way.

[Glitterati]

43. Yes, that's exactly what I got from this post

Rah rah, sis boom bah. Wave those pom poms!

I don't vote AGAINST someone, I vote FOR my party. But I never pledged blind alliance and never give it to anyone.

I don't live my life like freepers or Eric Erickson.

[gtar100]

141. I think that's a rather narrow viewpoint on the Op.

No one ever said you have to be a cheerleader for the party or compromise your principles. I was kind of hoping you'd actually read what I wrote following my first sentence. It's an interesting dilemma we Democrats have that republicans will never have. We can be self-critical but how do we do it without selling ourselves short and handing over the reigns of power to a bunch of cruel, hateful idiots we call republicans? If your house is on fire and you've got a drain that's clogged, which do you deal with first? Hint: republicans are the fire, corrupt corporate Democrats are the clog in the drain. If you let the house burn down, I guess you've kinda taken care of both problems, as long as you don't mind learning to sleep outdoors and bathing in polluted water. Repugs could care less about what happens to you.

[treestar]

53. No it isn't

That is just your stock answer to anyone who supports the Democrats.

Trying to make it look bad somehow.

[Auntie Bush]

116. Then don't. Support Demorats with your eyes wide open and well informed.

OR...stay home and sulk or vote ReThug...your choice. Or maybe you'd prefer to get on liberal threads and trash the president and help turn other liberals off...and pep up the circus clowns with meme's directly from Liberals themselves.

[Maraya1969]

136. Or bitch about everything they do so people will vote for the republican next time.

I cannot believe that some people have not gotten that message. Conservative certainly have gotten it. They support their people no matter what - to the point where they will say and believe ridiculous things just so their team with win.

As the OP said, some people don't know how to look at past history or future probability. Or to say it another way, "those who forget the past and doomed to repeat it"

[cheapdate]

158. That's what you got out of that?

[GeorgeGist]

3. Please link to original post.

[Scuba]

5. "... lack of Wall Street oversight is tantamount to economic malfeasance."

Does anyone disagree with this? On what grounds?

[randome]

6. I doubt anyone would disagree with that.

Do you really think an infrastructure of oversight can be built with the House GOP obstructing every move?

I have little doubt that a Dictator Obama would accomplish a lot more than he's managed so far.

But that's not the world we live in, is it?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]A ton of bricks, a ton of feathers. It's still gonna hurt.[/center][/font][hr]

[Scuba]

22. I believe law enforcement works for the AG, who works at the pleasure of the President.

Maybe that changed and I missed it.

[treestar]

58. And there is oversight

It is not as if there are no laws that regulate them. There is an SEC and a body of securities laws.

[ProSense]

10. No, but

"... lack of Wall Street oversight is tantamount to economic malfeasance."

Does anyone disagree with this? On what grounds?

...some people can't even acknowledge that Obama put in place the tools for such "oversight." The Presideing re-regulated Wall Street.

There is no question that Dodd-Frank was a strong bill—the strongest in three generations. I didn’t have a chance to vote for it because I wasn’t yet in the Senate, but if I could have, I would have voted for it twice.

http://www.warren.senate.gov/files/documents/AFR%20Roosevelt%20Institute%20Speech%202013-11-12.pdf

The challenge is to get regulators to do their jobs, and Congressional oversight is going to be key.

Some agencies, like the CFPB and NLRB are on the ball.

One of my favorite clips.

Obama's CFPB under Richard Cordray.

Elizabeth Warren: Cordray Vote ‘A Historic Day For Working Families’

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) took to Twitter on Tuesday in praise of the Senate's vote to advance Richard Cordray's nomination to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, calling it a "historic day for working families."

Elizabeth Warren ✔ @elizabethforma

I couldn't be more pleased that Rich Cordray will finally get the vote that he deserves. This is a historic day for working families!
1:11 PM - 16 Jul 2013

47 Retweets 26 favorites

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/elizabeth-warren-cordray-vote-historic-day-for-working

Thank you Senator Warren.

CFPB Sues ITT Tech For Allegedly Exploiting Students, Pushing Predatory Loans
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024570346

Sen. Warren Praises New CFPB Mortgage Rules that Make Families, Economy Safer
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024295777

Obama's NLRB: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024727672

[Scuba]

24. The AG works for the President. Obama needs no outside authority to order the AG to enforce the law.

[ProSense]

27. Remember Glass-Steagall?

"The AG works for the President. Obama needs no outside authority to order the AG to enforce the law."

It was repealed. Many of the immoral activities were crimes before the repeal of Glass-Steagall. I simply can't understand how people can acknowledge that repealing a law caused the problem, but not understand the the law was what made the activities illegal.

I've discussed this many times before. http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002990749#post4

I'll repost the full comment here...

(This chart) shows that prosecutions started dropping after the repeal of Glass-Steagall, it also shows prosecutions, not convictions. It's also not conclusive because it doesn't state what specifically it includes and appears to be related to bank fraud. Here's the reference:

This category can refer to crimes committed both within and against banks. Defendants include bank executives who mislead regulators, mortgage brokers who falsify loan documents, and consumers who write bad checks. (Here are some recent cases of bank fraud prosecutions.)

Goldman Sachs is not a bank. Still, even if it is bank fraud, it does offer more evidence of Bush's "abysmal" record, as these prosecutions dropped significantly during his Presidency.

The following is from the Financial Institution Fraud and Failure Reports for each fiscal year.



http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/fiff_00-01




http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/fiff-2002

(b): Types of Subjects Convicted in FIF Cases During FY 2007*
SUBJECT TYPE NUMBER OF SUBJECTS
Legal Alien 8
Illegal Alien 20
All Other Subjects 1,038
Bank Officer 88
Bank Employee 179
International or National Union Officer 1
President 1
Business Manager 2
Office Manager 2
Financial Secretary 1
Federal Employee - GS 12 & Below 1
State - All Others 1
Local Law Enforcement Officer 1
City Councilman 1
Possible Terrorist Member or Sympathizer 1
Company or Corporation 7
Local - All Others 2
Total 1,354

http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/fiff_06-07/fiff_06-07



http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/fiff_06-07/fiff_06-07

Given yhe above charts and the break out for 2007, it appears that most of the convictions were not bank executives. In fact, the majority were bank "outsiders," likely meaning more bad-check writers and document falsifiers.

Also, bank fraud is separate from corporate fraud, mortgage fraud, and securities and commodities fraud.

The following is from the Financial Crimes Report to the Public for each fiscal year:
(Note: The 2005 report does not break out securities and commodities fraud. The 2010-2011 report is the only one that breaks out financial institution fraud. All reports show corporate fraud and mortgage fraud.)

Through Fiscal Year 2005, cases pursued by the FBI resulted in 497 indictments and 317 convictions of corporate criminals. Numerous cases are pending plea agreements and trials. From July 1, 2002 through March 31, 2005, accomplishments regarding Corporate Fraud cases were as follows: $2.2 billion in Restitutions, $34.6 million in Recoveries, $79.1 million in Fines, and $27.9 million in Seizures. As Corporate Fraud statistical accomplishments were not provided before July 1, 2002, the following statistical accomplishments are reflective of this time frame through Second Quarter, Fiscal Year 2005.

http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/fcs_report2005/fcs_2005#CORPORATE

http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/fcs_report2005/fcs_2005#MORTGAGE

_________

During FY 2006, the FBI investigated 490 Corporate Fraud cases resulting in 171 indictments and 124 convictions of corporate criminals. Numerous cases are pending plea agreements and trials. The following notable statistical accomplishments are reflective in FY 2006 for Corporate Fraud: $1.2 billion in Restitutions, $41.5 million in Recoveries, $14.2 million in Fines, and $62.6 million in Seizures. The chart below is reflective of the number of pending cases from FY 2002 through FY 2006.

http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/fcs_report2006

During FY 2006, the FBI investigated 1165 cases of Securities and Commodities fraud and recorded 302 indictments and 164 convictions. Many of these Securities Fraud cases are pending plea agreements or trials. The following notable statistical accomplishments are reflective in FY 2006 for Securities and Commodities Fraud: $1.9 billion in Restitutions, $20.6 million in Recoveries, $80.7 million in Fines, and $62.7 million in Seizures. The chart below is reflective of the number of pending cases from FY 2002 through FY 2006.

http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/fcs_report2006/financial-crimes-report-to-the-public-fiscal-year-2006#Securities

Through FY 2006, 818 cases investigated by the FBI resulted in 263 indictments and 204 convictions of Mortgage Fraud criminals. The following notable statistical accomplishments are reflective in FY 2006 for Mortgage Fraud: $388.9 million in Restitutions, $1.4 million in Recoveries, and $231 million in Fines. The chart below is reflective of the number of pending cases from FY 2003 through FY 2006.

http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/fcs_report2006/financial-crimes-report-to-the-public-fiscal-year-2006#Mortgage

___________

Through FY 2007, cases pursued by the FBI resulted in 183 indictments and 173 convictions of corporate criminals. Numerous cases are pending plea agreements and trials. During Fiscal Year 2007, the FBI secured $12.6 billion in restitution orders and $38.6 million in fines from corporate criminals. The chart below reflects corporate fraud pending cases from Fiscal Year 2003 through Fiscal Year 2007 as follows: Fiscal Year 2003 - 279 cases; Fiscal Year 2004 - 332; Fiscal Year 2005 - 423; Fiscal Year 2006 - 486; and Fiscal Year 2008 - 529 cases.

http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/fcs_report2007/fcr_2007#corporate

As of the end of Fiscal Year 2007, the FBI was investigating 1,217 cases of securities and commodities fraud and had already recorded 320 indictments and 289 convictions. Additional notable accomplishments in Fiscal Year 2007 include: $1.7 billion in restitution orders; $24 million in recoveries; and $202.7 million in fines. The chart below reflects securities and commodities fraud pending cases from Fiscal Year 2003 through Fiscal Year 2007 as follows: Fiscal Year 2003 - 937 cases; Fiscal Year 2004 - 987cases; Fiscal Year 2005 - 1,139 cases; Fiscal Year 2006 - 1,165 cases; and Fiscal Year 2007 - 1,217 cases.

http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/fcs_report2007/fcr_2007#securities

Through Fiscal Year 2007, 1,204 cases resulted in 321 indictments and 260 convictions of mortgage fraud criminals. The following notable statistical accomplishments are reflective in Fiscal Year 2007 for mortgage fraud: $595.9 million in restitutions, $21.8 million in recoveries, and $1.7 in fines. The chart below reflects mortgage fraud pending cases from Fiscal Year 2003 through Fiscal Year 2007 as follows: Fiscal Year 2003 - 436 cases; Fiscal Year 2004 - 534 cases; Fiscal Year 2005 - 721 cases; Fiscal Year 2006 - 818 cases; and Fiscal Year 2007 - 1,204 cases.

http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/fcs_report2007/fcr_2007#mortgage

______________

Through FY 2008, cases pursued by the FBI resulted in 158 indictments and 132 convictions of corporate criminals. Numerous cases are pending plea agreements and trials. During FY 2008, the FBI secured $8.1 billion in restitution orders and $199 million in fines from corporate criminals. The chart below reflects corporate fraud pending cases from FY 2004 through FY 2008 as follows: FY 2004—332 cases; FY 2005—423; FY 2006—486; FY 2007—529; and FY 2008—545 cases.

http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/fcs_report2008/financial-crimes-report-to-the-public#corporate

As of the end of FY 2008, the FBI was investigating 1,210 cases of securities and commodities fraud and had already recorded 357 indictments and 296 convictions. Additional notable accomplishments in FY 2008 include: $3.1 billion in restitution orders; $43.6 million in recoveries; $151.4 million in fines and $84.2 million in seizures. The chart below reflects securities and commodities fraud pending cases from FY 2004 through FY 2008 as follows: FY 2004—987cases; FY 2005—1,139 cases; FY 2006—1,165 cases; FY 2007—1,217 cases and FY 2008—1,210 cases.

http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/fcs_report2008/financial-crimes-report-to-the-public#securities

Through FY 2008, 1,644 cases resulted in 560 indictments and 338 convictions of mortgage fraud criminals. The following notable statistical accomplishments are reflective in FY 2008 for mortgage fraud: $1.1 billion in restitutions, $3.3 million in recoveries, $3.1 million in fines, and 68 seizures valued at $476.7 million. The chart below reflects mortgage fraud pending cases from FY 2004 through FY 2008 as follows: FY 2004—534 cases; FY 2005—721 cases; FY 2006—818 cases; FY 2007—1,204 cases; and FY 2008—1,644 cases.

http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/fcs_report2008/financial-crimes-report-to-the-public#mortgage

____________

Through FY 2009, cases pursued by the FBI resulted in 153 indictments/informations and 156 convictions of corporate criminals. Numerous cases are pending plea agreements and trials. During FY 2009, the FBI secured $6.1 billion in restitution orders and $5.4 million in fines from corporate criminals. The chart below reflects corporate fraud pending cases from FY 2005 through FY 2009 as follows: FY 2005— 423 cases; FY 2006—486 cases; FY 2007—529 cases; FY 2008—545 cases; and FY 2009—592 cases.

http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/financial-crimes-report-2009/financial-crimes-report-2009

As of the end of FY 2009, the FBI was investigating 1,510 cases of securities and commodities fraud and had already recorded 412 indictments/informations and 306 convictions. Additional notable accomplishments in FY 2009 include: $8.1 billion in restitution orders; $63.4 million in recoveries; $12.8 million in fines; and $126 million in seizures. The chart below reflects securities and commodities fraud pending cases from FY 2005 through FY 2009 as follows: FY 2005—1,139 cases; FY 2006—1,165 cases; FY 2007—1,217 cases; FY 2008—1,210 cases; and FY 2009— 1,510 cases.

http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/financial-crimes-report-2009/financial-crimes-report-2009#securities

Through FY 2009, 2,794 cases resulted in 822 indictments and 494 convictions of mortgage fraud criminals. The following notable statistical accomplishments are reflective in FY 2009 for mortgage fraud: $2.5 billion in restitutions, $7.5 million in recoveries, and $58.4 million in fines; 128 seizures valued at $5.06 million and 226 criminal indicted assets valued at $510.1 million. The chart below reflects mortgage fraud pending cases from FY 2005 through FY 2009 as follows: FY 2005—721 cases; FY 2006—818 cases; FY 2007—1,204 cases; FY 2008—1,644 cases; and FY 2009—2,794 cases.

http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/financial-crimes-report-2009/financial-crimes-report-2009#mortgage

_____________

During FY 2011, cases pursued by the FBI resulted in 242 indictments/informations and 241 convictions of corporate criminals. Numerous cases are pending plea agreements and trials. During FY 2011, the FBI secured $2.4 billion in restitution orders and $16.1 million in fines from corporate criminals. The chart below reflects corporate fraud pending cases from FY 2007 through FY 2011.

http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/financial-crimes-report-2010-2011/financial-crimes-report-2010-2011#Corporate

As of the end of FY 2011, the FBI was investigating 1,846 cases of securities and commodities fraud and had recorded 520 indictments/informations and 394 convictions against this criminal threat. Additional notable accomplishments in FY 2011 include: $8.8 billion in restitution orders; $36 million in recoveries; $113 million in fines; and $751 million in forfeitures. The chart below reflects securities and commodities fraud pending cases from FY 2007 through FY 2011.

http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/financial-crimes-report-2010-2011/financial-crimes-report-2010-2011#Securities

During FY 2011, cases pursued by the FBI resulted in 521 informations and indictments, and 429 convictions of FIF criminals. The following are notable statistical accomplishments in FY 2011 for FIF: $1.38 billion in restitutions; $116.3 million in fines; and seizures valued at $15.7 million. The chart below reflects pending FIF cases from FY 2007 through FY 2011.

http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/financial-crimes-report-2010-2011/financial-crimes-report-2010-2011#Financial-ins

Through FY 2011, FBI investigations resulted in 1,223 informations and indictments and 1,082 convictions of mortgage fraud criminals. The following notable statistical accomplishments are reflective in FY 2011 for mortgage fraud: $1.38 billion in restitutions; $116.3 million in fines; seizures valued at $15.7 million; and $7.33 million in forfeitures.

http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/financial-crimes-report-2010-2011/financial-crimes-report-2010-2011#Mortgage

Pending cases are important because they can still result in convictions.

The fact is that prosecutions that could go forward did.

President Obama’s Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force STRIKES AGAIN! $200 Million Fraud
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002844790

Former BofA Exec Indicted For Fraud
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002990749

Allen Stanford Convicted in Houston for Orchestrating $7 Billion Investment Fraud Scheme
http://www.stopfraud.gov/iso/opa/stopfraud/2012/12-crm-293.html

Former Chief Investment Officer of Stanford Financial Group Pleads Guilty to Obstruction of Justice
http://www.stopfraud.gov/iso/opa/stopfraud/2012/12-crm-785.html

Former Corporate Chairman of Consulting Firm and Board Director Rajat Gupta Found Guilty of Insider Trading in Manhattan Federal Court
http://www.stopfraud.gov/iso/opa/stopfraud/NYS-120615.html

Hedge Fund Founder Raj Rajaratnam Sentenced in Manhattan Federal Court to 11 Years in Prison for Insider Trading Crimes
http://www.stopfraud.gov/news/news-10132011.html

CEO and Head Trader of Bankrupt Sentinel Management Indicted in Chicago in Alleged $500 Million Fraud Scheme Prior to Firm’s 2007 Collapse
http://www.stopfraud.gov/iso/opa/stopfraud/ILN-120601.html

Yahoo! Executive and California Hedge Fund Portfolio Manager Plead Guilty in New York for Insider Trading
http://www.stopfraud.gov/iso/opa/stopfraud/NYS-120521.html

Three Former Financial Services Executives Convicted for Roles in Conspiracies Involving Investment Contracts for the Proceeds of Municipal Bonds
http://www.stopfraud.gov/iso/opa/stopfraud/2012/12-at-620.html

Former Chairman of Taylor, Bean & Whitaker Sentenced to 30 Years in Prison and Ordered to Forfeit $38.5 Million
http://www.stopfraud.gov/news/news-06302011-2.html
http://www.stopfraud.gov/iso/opa/stopfraud/2012/12-crm-342.html

Former Chief Financial Officer of Taylor, Bean & Whitaker Pleads Guilty to Fraud Scheme
http://www.stopfraud.gov/iso/opa/stopfraud/2012/12-crm-342.html

Seattle Investment Fund Founder Sentenced to 18 Years in Prison for Ponzi Scheme and Bankruptcy Fraud
http://www.stopfraud.gov/iso/opa/stopfraud/WAW-120210.html

Former Hedge Fund Managing Director Sentenced to 20 Years for Defrauding 900 Investors in $294 Million Scheme
http://www.stopfraud.gov/iso/opa/stopfraud/ILN-111117.html

Peter Madoff, Former Chief Compliance Officer and Senior Managing Director at Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC, Pleads Guilty in New York to Securities Fraud and Tax Fraud Conspiracy
http://www.stopfraud.gov/iso/opa/stopfraud/NYS-1206291.html

Peter Madoff Is Sentenced to 10 Years for His Role in Fraud
http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/12/20/peter-madoff-is-sentenced-to-10-years-for-his-role-in-fraud

[Scuba]

30. Are you suggesting that no crimes were committed?

https://www.commondreams.org/headline/2013/11/14-4

Federal Judge Slams DoJ for Not Prosecuting Wall Street Execs
The "'too big to jail excuse' is mindboggling in what it says about the department's disregard of fundamental legal principles," said Rakoff

A federal judge with a history of slamming the regulatory system issued scathing remarks against the Department of Justice on Tuesday for allowing Wall Street executives to escape criminal prosecutions. Speaking at an event hosted by the New York City Bar Association on Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff of Manhattan said the DoJ's "unconvincing" excuses for not prosecuting individuals were "technically and morally suspect."

"[Not] a single high level executive has been successfully prosecuted in connection with the recent financial crisis, and given the fact that most of the relevant criminal provisions are governed by a five-year statute of limitations, it appears very likely that none will be," Rakoff said.

While the DoJ has not said that all the top executives are innocent in the lead-up to the financial crisis, it "has offered one or another excuse for not criminally prosecuting them—excuses that, on inspection, appear unconvincing,” the Financial Times reports Judge Rakoff as saying.

"Just going after the company," which could lead to deferred prosecutions and nominal fines, is "both technically and morally suspect. It is technically suspect because, under the law, you should not indict or threaten to indict a company unless you can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that some managerial agent of the company committed the alleged crime; and if you can prove that, why not indict the manager?"

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/bank-of-america-found-liable-for-mortgage-fraud/

Bank of America found liable for mortgage fraud

Bank of America (BAC), accused of lying about the quality of mortgages it passed along to financial firms Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, was found liable for fraud on Wednesday in a civil case the government said captured the frenzied pursuit of profits at all costs just before the economy collapsed in 2008.

If they were found guilty in the civil case, why is there no criminal case?

Why is it illegal to launder drug money, and HSBC gets fined $2B for doing so, but there are no criminal prosecutions?

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/americas/united-states/140121/hsbc-paying-2-billion-drug-money-laundering-cartel

HSBC is paying $2 billion, or 5 weeks' worth of its profit, to avoid criminal charges in drug cartel laundering case

Under the terms of the deal, the Justice Department agreed to suspend criminal charges against HSBC and its US subsidiary for five years if the bank agreed to pay the penalty.

[ProSense]

31. No, and I provided links to several high-profile convictions. n/t

[Scuba]

32. What's your excuse for the criminals who were not prosecuted?

[ProSense]

35. Please reread my comment, unless you want me to repost it. n/t

[Scuba]

40. Please don't repost it; DU's storage is stressed enough! But I can't find in there any excuse ...

... for not prosecuting these cases. Are you going to offer one or just try to drown the board with blue links?

[ProSense]

42. I'm fairly certain

Please don't repost it; DU's storage is stressed enough! But I can't find in there any excuse .. for not prosecuting these cases. Are you going to offer one or just try to drown the board with blue links?

...that this (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024757947#post27) wasn't invisible:

Remember Glass-Steagall?

"The AG works for the President. Obama needs no outside authority to order the AG to enforce the law."

It was repealed. Many of the immoral activities were crimes before the repeal of Glass-Steagall. I simply can't understand how people can acknowledge that repealing a law caused the problem, but not understand the the law was what made the activities illegal.

[Scuba]

44. Any excuse for not criminally prosecuting the laundering of drug money, or is that legal now?

Instead of admitting that not prosecuting the laundering of drug money is a crime that should be prosecuted you could just post 400-5000 blue links with lots of excerpts, but that will be a "tell".

[ProSense]

46. So you want to focus on the one case you posted where HSBC was fined?

That's a conviction, and that doesn't change because you wanted someone to go jail.

"Instead of admitting that not prosecuting the laundering of drug money is a crime that should be prosecuted you could just post 400-5000 blue links with lots of excerpts, but that will be a 'tell.'"

Despite the obvious attempt at denial and deflection about "blue links" (very lame), I'll repeat my point (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024757947#post27):

Remember Glass-Steagall?

"The AG works for the President. Obama needs no outside authority to order the AG to enforce the law."

It was repealed. Many of the immoral activities were crimes before the repeal of Glass-Steagall. I simply can't understand how people can acknowledge that repealing a law caused the problem, but not understand the the law was what made the activities illegal.

[Scuba]

50. Are you saying that laundering drug money is legal now that Glass-Steagall has been repealed?

I'm pretty sure you're wrong about that.

[ProSense]

54. Silliness. The company was convicted and fined. You posted the link.

Keep pretending not to understand the point, and I'll keep repeating it (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024757947#post27):

Remember Glass-Steagall?

"The AG works for the President. Obama needs no outside authority to order the AG to enforce the law."

It was repealed. Many of the immoral activities were crimes before the repeal of Glass-Steagall. I simply can't understand how people can acknowledge that repealing a law caused the problem, but not understand the the law was what made the activities illegal.

At the link, you will also find several high-profile convictions of individuals that were able to go forward.

[Scuba]

64. Convicted of CIVIL, not CRIMINAL charges, fined a fraction of their gains.

You're trying to defend the indefensible. You haven't come within 1,000 light-years of making your case.

Yes, there have been a handful of criminal convictions, but there have been many, many crimes conveniently overlooked by the administration. Your refusal to acknowledge that tells all that is needed.

[ProSense]

69. Here's what

HSBC is paying $2 billion, or 5 weeks' worth of its profit, to avoid criminal charges in drug cartel laundering case

Under the terms of the deal, the Justice Department agreed to suspend criminal charges against HSBC and its US subsidiary for five years if the bank agreed to pay the penalty.

...you posted. You offered up that case, not me.

"You're trying to defend the indefensible. You haven't come within 1,000 light-years of making your case. "

I'm not trying to defend shit.

"Yes, there have been a handful of criminal convictions, but there have been many, many crimes conveniently overlooked by the administration. Your refusal to acknowledge that tells all that is needed."

It was more than a fucking "handful," and you want to ignore them while pretending not to understand the point. So I'll keep repeating it (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024757947#post27):

Remember Glass-Steagall?

"The AG works for the President. Obama needs no outside authority to order the AG to enforce the law."

It was repealed. Many of the immoral activities were crimes before the repeal of Glass-Steagall. I simply can't understand how people can acknowledge that repealing a law caused the problem, but not understand the the law was what made the activities illegal.

At the link, you will also find several high-profile convictions of individuals that were able to go forward.

[randome]

36. So if some were prosecuted and some were not...

...what do you think is the reason for not enough prosecutions? Do you really think Obama is 'kissing the ring' of the 1%?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"If you're bored then you're boring." -Harvey Danger[/center][/font][hr]

[Scuba]

38. Yes. Gave one of them cufflinks too.

[randome]

76. So your main complaint is that Obama hasn't prosecuted enough people.

Fair argument to make but why ignore the good he has done? The people he has prosecuted?

We would all like government to function better than it does in the area of enforcement.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You have to play the game to find out why you're playing the game. -Existenz[/center][/font][hr]

[Scuba]

79. I haven't ignored the good he has done. I just want more of it, and less malfeasance.

That said, we won't be very effective at moving our Party in a direction that will help the People if all we do is cheerlead.

It's not "My Party right or wrong", it's "Righting my Party's wrongs".

[randome]

94. Got it.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]If you don't give yourself the same benefit of a doubt you'd give anyone else, you're cheating someone.[/center][/font][hr]

[Sheepshank]

99. Clearly, not mopping fast enough

that goal post got moved several time before finally admitting this.

[mcar]

8. It is an incredible post

Thanks for the reminder.

[brush]

9. Thank you for this post

Everyone on DU needs to read this.

I too was disillusioned back then but I went the other way by voting for Gus Hall.

[samplegirl]

18. I totally agree

Read it over again and decided even though it is climbing up the greatest page it is a post that is positive and in D.U. it seems we need all the positive reinforcement we can get.

[JNelson6563]

21. What a rare gem for DU.

I'm sure the snideness will bubble up from the guilty parties. They always out themselves when things like this are posted.

Julie

[marions ghost]

25. The analogy doesn't work for me

even tho it sounds logical and I agree about Jimmy Carter being badly swiftboated.

For one thing we are in a totally different world re. how everyone gets their information and what influences them. Disagreement is the norm, rather than lock-step consensus behind a political figure. Because our real issue is the hijacking of the country by the Corporatocracy--well represented in both parties.

Sure I think it's important to recognize the Obama accomplishments in the face of the most severe opposition imaginable. But seeing these as the "good old days" is extremely depressing. That is saying we should just get used to it, lower our expectations, give up on real reform.

Nagging people to shut up about anything they feel strongly about in this political crucible is NOT the way to go. Using analogies with times that have little bearing in the vastly different terrain we are in now does not work for me.

Blaming DU is laughable.

[Scuba]

34. +1

[albino65]

29. Thank you

I enjoyed reading this. The bashers are out and will always be out here. I've come to recognize their user names on DU and completely disregard anything they say. They complain of blind loyalty, but none are so blind that will not see.

[Glitterati]

41. Ahh, so you see where we are going.....

Because I'm about to put every single member of the Obama cheerleading squad on ignore. The only reason I'm waiting is so that I can send a few more alerts on those who are the most offensive in their cheerleading.

So, we'll simply cancel out each others actions.

Yeah, that will be helpful, won't it?

[albino65]

48. And who are you alerting?

Do you have a bunch of little minions to do your bidding? Do you have a phone tree? Sound the klaxons for the tiny whinies! If it weren't so sad, the Obama bashing would be laughable.

[Glitterati]

49. Why do you care?

Bwahahahahahaha, this entire post is laughable.

[albino65]

52. And...

I don't.

[Sheepshank]

102. would you please put me on ignore? Gosh that would be great. Thanks.

[Glitterati]

104. Sure, just as soon as I finish policing

your posts so I can alert on them. We can play your game two ways.

[Sheepshank]

106. am I policing and alerting your posts?

maybe I should go and check on that?

The biggest question is why are you bothering to police someone's posts who clearly seems to have enough disdain for your posts that they request to be blocked? I hate to think that my posts are hanging on your decision making skills, to see if they have risen to the level of your need to alert. Save youself some time and just block me...thanks

[Sheepshank]

111. oh my....if I addressed you more directly would that speed things up?

here we go: You're making up shit now, in your most recent post to me. I am not in a gang and I have no gang plans. Your ability to "look deeper" into a situation is sorely lacking.

[Cha]

165. You're outta control with your hateon Obama supporters. Since you're bragging about putting

Obama supporters on Ignore.. sign me up.

"offensive cheerleading ".. ROFL

[Whisp]

33. K&R

[Liberal In Red State]

45. I could not have said it better! We must be of similar age . . Because I remember the Carter/Reagan

Last edited Mon Mar 31, 2014, 03:44 PM - Edit history (1)

years much the same. Though I did not vote for him. I now live by a simple political philosophy . . . Support Liberals as they are the future for science, medicine, advancement of humankind. Those who say I vote for the "best man" should have learned long ago that unless there are 51 "best men" then your vote is wasted. I'd rather harp at the majority to push them forward than at an ineffective and easily ignored minority that can do nothing! We got the ACA because we have a majority - we are able to withstand the onslaught of numerous votes for repeal because we have the numbers. My biggest fear now is that the midterms will have the Country taking steps backward because liberals can't be bothered to vote in the midterms. If nothing less is accomplished - if we mobilize in the midterms like we do in general elections - we could possibly bury the tea party and the religious conservatives for 10-12 years!

[mountain grammy]

47. Thank you, Johnny Ringo, for the trip down memory lane

I became eligible to vote (21 then) 3 weeks after the 1968 election. Voted in the 1970 midterms and for McGovern in 1972, alarmed at the direction my country was going in.
Of course, 1980 confirmed my fears. I voted for Carter, but admit to not really campaigning for him or answering the criticism of him because I was pissy about him deregulating the airlines, boo fucking hoo. I did however, recognize the evil that was Reagan. In fact, I admit to being a little disappointed when he survived the assassination. Although I can't even imagine the level of sainthood he would have achieved by dying when he got there by living and nearly destroying all traces of social progress while condemning thousands of AIDS victims to death. That's America!

We are a diverse group and people have different opinions. We will never have a perfect Democratic leader. FDR and JFK weren't, and LBJ, our liberal shining star who honestly believed in equality with his heart and soul and who I thank every day for that Medicare card in my purse, pursued a wrongful war.
Of course we can and should criticize the president's policies when we disagree, but let's try to be civilized and adult about it and leave the hatred and name calling to the right wing nuts. When one of those nuts says to me "even blah blah, liberal writer calls Obama a used car salesman," I cringe, but hold my head up and say "that's absurd!" Well, it should be.
I think Obama is a good president and if his policies are not as liberal as I (me, me, me) want, I think it's about appealing to a huge number of his constituents who are also not as liberal. You've got to get them to listen before you can change minds.
I keep seeing this: Perfection is the enemy of good.

[marions ghost]

82. We should NOT be defensive nor discouraged from speaking up

You say:

"I think it's about appealing to a huge number of his constituents who are also not as liberal. You've got to get them to listen before you can change minds."

--That's wrong. We don't need to "get them to listen" to change minds. We need to have the courage to state our opinions and stand by them. That's what really changes minds.

And if they don't want to listen --after the Liberal Opinion (on whatever) gets out to them, then that's their choice.

But don't stifle dissent. Which is what this thread is trying to do.

"We are a diverse group" --and that's as it should be.

[mountain grammy]

91. No, we shouldn't, and I see plenty of dissent on this thread

and all over DU. I don't see anyone trying to stifle dissent, but I think calling the president a "used car salesman" is like the religious right calling him a "baby killer." it's offensive because neither is anywhere close to truth, and I would hope we would stick to facts and truth here.
I thought LBJ was the most effective president since FDR in advancing liberal policies, but I was marching in the streets against the war. That said, If I had been old enough and if he had run in 1968, I would have damn well voted for him and I defended his domestic policies loud and strong because, you know, Civil Rights, Medicare, Voting Rights, Head Start, and many others. Do they make up for the debacle of Vietnam? It's almost impossible to make a case either way, and that's reality.

I think it's our job to dissent, but also to appreciate the strength of the powers who will continue to use everything possible to bring down the Democratic party, and they're doing the job. They sure don't need our help.

[marions ghost]

98. Way too much over-reaction to this

---calling the prez a "used car salesman" is NOTHING like calling him a "baby killer."

The first thought expresses disillusionment. (And anger--at the constant barrage of feel-good liberal rhetoric we get from a LOT of politicians--rhetoric that never makes it into policy, for whatever reason). Liberal disillusionment with Obama is out there. That is truth.

The other thought expresses Hate. That is untruth.

Dissent has to be allowed without strings, without a lot of urgings to hush up out of fear. No, "they" don't need our help but it's wrong to think that every statement against Obama will sway thousands more against him who are not already against him.

Speaking one's own truth is best at any time. There are plenty who are disillusioned and they need to be heard. This "used car salesman" remark has been blown way out of proportion.

As for our enemies, keep em guessing.

[F4lconF16]

119. +1 nt

[mountain grammy]

125. Our enemies aren't guessing..

they know when liberals start demeaning the Democratic president, they can win more seats this year. They've got the cash and some of us give them the ammunition.

Make no mistake, they are the enemy. I do not want to live in a theocracy, and I fear that's where we're headed.

[marions ghost]

133. I agree they are the enemy but

I think it looks far weaker to try to pull everybody on our side into lock-step thinking. Makes us look REALLY worried...There are bigger forces at work than what you and I chat about on DU.

They are gonna think they can win more seats regardless. Nobody is giving them "more ammunition."
They have enough.

[Cha]

166. It wasn't just a "used car salesman". it was a piece of shit used car salesman" and "fuck you mr

president with all my heart and soul" that ended up on a rw site as their hate fodder..

[Sheepshank]

105. You know what I find interesting?????

Those who tout dislike for the current party and presidency so voiciferously, appear to be the ones that are trying to shut down support, calling them Obamabots, and sheeple and every other disdainful word you could come up with. Funny tht isn't it? So given we are seeing the mote in each others' eyes, I wonder where the truth actually lies?

[marions ghost]

109. So what?

Do you actually think that anybody calling Obama a "used car salesman" changes any minds, or votes?

Do you think that calling a type of supporter an "Obamabot" causes them a lot of sleepless nights, or changes any votes?

--------

So what's this really about? Just a little tempest in the DU teapot

[Sheepshank]

113. do you actually think that those who counter anti Obama rhetoric

actually change changes minds or votes?

the point is no one is shutting down anyone.....You tried to voice a concern that the voices of some are being shut down. It's just not happening, and attempting to play the victim is pathetically one sided and a narrow, inaccurate, pov.

[marions ghost]

115. Not the point

There's a pile-on going on, I think you know that.

ya got nuthin.

[Perseus]

51. Great Post - Thzank you very much

Agree 100% with everything you have said, and one thing I can remind many of is to think of what we have had if Romney had taken over the presidency.

We cannot give the republicans any fuel because they will run with it and make a big fire.

Thank you very much, I will pass your post around, this is a MUST READ for all democrats.

[tiredtoo]

55. Do not feel bad about voting for "Saint Ronnie"

Many of us were duped into this action. It is the many of us that saw the error of our ways that count today. Personally, me voting transition followed the same path as yours. When he began his attack on organized labor i too saw the light.
Carry on, carry on!

[stg81]

57. this

, the blame will be partly on those who worked five days a week slamming their fist and exclaiming to the electorate, the tavern, and yes, DU, what a disappointing failure Obama was to them.

Amen.

hope you-know-who doesn't read it! he'll go into a tirade

[Tikki]

59. My disgust and disappointment in ronald reagan has not been tempered by time...

I knew who he was for a long time before his election. He was a corporate shill of the worst kind.

His job was to bring the Middle Class Americans down a notch or two and he enlisted the religious community to help.

Everything JohnnyRingo posted is accurate. And I cried when I read that post.

Maybe because I lived through the tough years I appreciate what we as Democrats have accomplished
and vow to still work on what needs to be done until my dying day.

All I can think about is what will I leave behind for my grandchildren.


Tikki

[JohnnyRingo]

149. Let me share something I found in the internet a long time ago...

Dancing on a grave is pretty cold, but I don't want you to feel alone in your contempt:

[Tikki]

150. I live nearby and have never been able to bring myself to go there.

I have actually gone out of my way to avoid going by there.

I salute the young man in the photo.

Tikki

[abelenkpe]

60. These are the good old days?

Tell that to the animators laid off by Dreamworks who still cannot find work. Or the thousands of other LA artists who used to work in animation and VFX who have seen their jobs offshored in the past year and a half. But hey, the entertainment industry's so successful. Something to be duplicated across the nation.

I really hope these aren't the good old days. I hope things get better.

[marions ghost]

95. +++

[Tikki]

100. But over on the Cosmos thread some are criticizing the use of animation and f/x.

Like they expect Newton and Haley to join Dr. Tyson in person on a stroll through an English Garden.


Tikki
ps animation appeals to both children and adults and Children are watching COSMOS.

[abelenkpe]

101. My nine year old Loves Cosmos

Actually the only show we watch.

[samplegirl]

130. Everyone has there most important platform

so it goes back to Obama is not doing enough. So lets get Elizabeth Warren who can address every platform out there.

[ljm2002]

61. So this UNION guy listened to the "malcontents"...

...(malcontents who, he acknowledges, almost certainly did NOT vote Republican, no matter how much they complained)... and then he admits that he himself VOTED FOR REAGAN... and we are supposed to conclude that it is not okay to criticize the President if he is on your team, because certain weak-minded people might go and vote for the other guy? IOW the weak-minded stupidity of the "Reagan Democrats" is the fault of people who are able to do critical thinking?

Pffft.

Just because you are, or once were too weak-minded to properly sort out the political realities for yourself, does not in any way, shape or form mean that others should refrain from criticizing a politician when they have reason to do so. The very idea is antithetical to our founding principles.

[mikekohr]

63. Great Post Samplegirl.

I do not support President Obama because he is African-American or because he is Irish. I support him because he is a good man. He is competent, accomplished and pragmatic. He is a dedicated family man, and an inspirational leader.

His realistic supporters understand there was a tremendous amount of projection onto this president, irrational hatred from the far right and unrealistic expectations from the far left and some in between.

I worked to give President Obama the votes he needed in Congress. Not enough of us did. He was elected President, not crowned King.

He inherited the 2nd greatest economic free fall in US history. His policies, entirely without support and with unprecedented obstructionism from the radical right in Congress, produced the quickest return to positive job growth in 25 years. His policies saved the auto industry. He has oversaw the greatest turn-a-round in job creation in US history. President Obama has oversaw the greatest turn-a-round in the DOW in US history. He has reduced the yearly deficit more than every other president combined. He has presided over the most scandal free administration in US history. By next year he will have ended both of the wars he inherited. President Obama passed the first step to universal health care, a goal talked about for 100 years.

He is not short of accomplishment, but many of his critics are short of perspective and balance.

I believe Reverend King is smiling down upon President Obama today just as I believe history will smile upon him tomorrow.

[DinahMoeHum]

88. +1

[BlancheSplanchnik]

65. thanks, i would have missed this.

I was too young to be paying attention to LBJ......

Excellent read.

[WinkyDink]

66. "spoiled baby boomers who grew up with color TVs, Sansui stereos, and a new sedan in the garage

every two years."

What?!

I'M a Baby Boomer (1949), and WE ALL grew up in the 1950's/early 60's!

We had B&W TV's, record players, and carports if we were lucky (my mother---my old house---has no shelter for the car to this day).

We MIGHT have "moved up" to a stereo in our early 20's, but that is beyond the term "grew up with."

[zentrum]

67. Have always seen...

...LBJ's disasterous Viet Nam stance as the beginning of the end of the FDR Democratic Party. Because he completely turned off the next generation of young voters, who henceforth remained politically alienated and burned out on the system. You are not remembering how much we hated the war.

It was the beginning of a sense of learned helplessness on the part of the Liberal wing of the Democratic Party and it's never since regathered its forces.

And it wasn't Carter who was the nail in the coffin. It was the DLC.

[greatlaurel]

68. You are pretty well spot on. Thanks for the post.

One thing you left out was the deliberate splitting of the Democratic Party during Carter's reelection campaign by some in the party. The challenge from the "left" was the same as we hear today. Carter was deemed not liberal enough. Teddy Kennedy went out of his way to stab Carter in the back by running against him in the primaries. It needlessly split the party and liberals stayed home in droves in November. I do not know why the Kennedys hated Carter so much, but their anti-Carter attitude did tremendous harm to our country, by facilitating the election of Reagan. I see the same attitudes being posted here over and over again about Obama and Hillary Clinton, trying to split the party into factions again. It seems to be a combination of failure to learn from history and right wing operatives pushing a narrative that has been so effective for them in the past.

Everyone should read Robert Caro's biography of Lyndon Johnson, The Passage of Power. It is highly informative about Johnson and very illustrative about those times and how politics was done. Caro states that while everyone knows the old saying about how power corrupts, he says that people do not remember that power also reveals. When Johnson had the power of the presidency he acted swiftly to help a huge swath of the American public, including the poor, minorities and the forgotten. He was a revolutionary. His Great Society did tremendous, earth shaking good things until it was derailed by the Vietnam War. That war was designed, by a few men at a very high level (and Robert McNamara was instrumental in that betrayal of the American people), to do exactly that, derail Johnson's Great Society by sucking all the money into the war. Why was Johnson fooled into that idiotic war? Wish he were still alive to ask. The massive inflation during Carter's term had a lot to do with the delayed payments for the war coming due, but the media never talked about that. They were only interested in stirring up hatred for the Middle Eastern countries raising crude oil prices.

[freshwest]

161. Pretty much sums it up.

[Sheepshank]

70. I wonder how many presidental elections it will take

to find that one perfect candidate, the one that is perfect in every way for ME, ME, ME and of course by extension will be the perfect candidate for everyone else?

I think the next best thing is the candidate I preferred, and had garnered enough others' preferences, to get a majority vote? Oh wait, he is in the WH right now!

Breaking news: There is no perfection to be had in a political candidtate. There is no situtaion that cannot be changed or altered by the reality of the events at hand. There is no candidtate that can predict every political, national and fiscal situation during a campaign. And whomever the "malcontents" would like to occupy the WH, is likely to have to fall into the same category as the best that the majority of voters can find on the ballot.

[Demo_Chris]

72. Well written. To save others the time, here's a summary: "Vote Democrat anyway"

[okaawhatever]

73. Thank you for reposting this. I, like so many others, missed it the first time around. There has

been so much vitriol on DU lately that I don't click on most posts when I'm not certain of the subject. It shouldn't be that way, but it is.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

74. "Not as bad" is piss poor advertising. "Not as bad" is piss poor governance.

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. Thomas Paine

[kelliekat44]

78. Samplegirl, thank you for a very thoughtful and insightful post. I feel you.

I believe that the President has much for the Dems to be proud of. And I believe that there was much more he could have done had he had Congress willing to work WITH him instead of AGAINST him. In the face of historical opposition from both the right and the left, President Obama, has acted with compassion, understanding, and pragmatism of which few who have occupied that office have even been capable. One thing about DU, the comments and commenters here are fairly transparent. It would be easy to allow attacks against one's OPs to be hurtful and personal. Just consider the source, mind your heart and your mind and be at peace.

And, oh, yeah...right on -JohnnyRingo!!

[Rowdyboy]

80. Thank you for drawing my attention to one of the best things I've read on DU in a long time....

I was there too and I remember it well.

Those who don't remember history are condemned to repeat it.....

[ErikJ]

81. Republicans behind unpopularity of all 3 presidents

Nixon sabotaged LBJ's Paris Peaces talk b4 the election of 1968 by promising N. Viet Nam a better deal if he got elected.

Nixon started the rampant inflation that dogged Carter, the inflationary causing oil embargos started under Nixon and Ford,
and Reagan promised arms to Iran if they held the hostages until after he got elected.

The Republicans CONSPIRED the night of Obama's inauguration to block every single thing Obama has wanted to do including things that would have decreased unemployment faster.

[Enthusiast]

84. Correct.

[Zorra]

83. Not the same. A bunch of hippie hating conservative Democrats voted for Reagan

en masse. No one but a dumb kid, or a shallow fucking idiot, could have voted for that fool.

Obama is not running in 2016.

That said, I do not criticize Democrats to non-Democrats, because non-Democrats are generally too dull to discuss politics with, and will not have the wherewithal to understand that, while I may criticize Dems, I will be a Dem rock at election time. Generally, I just refute the stupid things they parrot from Rush Limbaugh and O'Reilly.

I will discuss politics and criticize Dems with Greens or independent liberals/socialists, but I can't argue for Dems with them, and not be a hypocrite, because I agree with them on everything, except in their futile exercise of voting for third party candidates.

I will try to make it clear to them that they need to vote for Democrats in order to at least make some progress, and keep republicans out of office, but can't say that they are wrong in their criticisms of Dems, because, in fact, the Greens have a platform that is far superior to the Democratic Party Platform.

They simply have no possibility of winning elections in our two party system.

[ProSense]

86. Well,

"No one but a dumb kid, or a shallow fucking idiot, could have voted for that fool."

...Cenk Uygur did, and a few others who are now Democrats. I don't understand it, but it happened.

[ljm2002]

134. Cenk Uygur used to be a Republican...

...but I don't remember him saying he voted for Reagan. Is he even old enough to have been of voting age at the time?

Anyway of course, one can still argue that no one but a dumb kid, or a shallow fucking idiot, could have been a Republican, and it is hard to dispute the point.

[Doctor_J]

143. Same here Zorra

whenever my far right FIL starts in I shut him up post haste by asking how many people have gotten HC using the Republican plan.

But IMHO this pandering and throat-clearing by the president is very bad for voter engagement AND for governance. The Repukes drool and scream and lie, and he responds by playing golf with Boner and going on Fox "News" and doesn't even defend himself or the party. If he would have stood his ground in 2009-10 on HC reform, with a daily declaration of, "we are NOT going to leave 40 million Americans without insurance, and we are NOT going to guarantee insurance companies a half trillion dollars a year so they can buy more lake houses. The Republicans did not learn their lesson in November. They insist that we have to have the most expensive health care in the world, and leave some without. I don't buy it. Give me 2 more Senators and we'll have health care", turnout in 2010 would have equaled 2008.

He didn't. He caved, and bailed on all of those voters, and the party and the American people are paying dearly.

[nomorenomore08]

162. "I agree with them on everything, except in their futile exercise of voting for third party

candidates." I can so relate to this. And I so wish we had a viable multi-party system at the federal level, but as it is I'm stuck voting for Dems even if many of them are clearly too conservative for my tastes.

[Enthusiast]

85. Unrecommended completely.

Misleading. Calculated to mislead.

[Glitterati]

87. Agree completely.

Yet one more "opinion" masquerading as Democratic Party principals and beliefs.

[Hissyspit]

144. Yup. Essentially another "sit down and shut up" post. Which I already read when it was first posted.

The Left was criticizing LBJ because he was lying us into war and leading us into disaster and GETTING PEOPLE KILLED.

You know who I was gonna vote for in the Carter/Reagan election, if I had been two months older? JIMMY CARTER.

I have never, ever voted for a Republican, most assuredly not Ronald Reagan, except maybe in a few local offices. All my life it has been mostly straight Dem.

This call for long-term perspective can just as easily be read as, not "the wisdom of time," but "rose-colored glasses," a trivialization of people's serious concerns at the time.

[pragmatic_dem]

154. it was a long winded way of saying liberals should stay in the closet becase

you embarrass me in front of my corporate friends and family.

[Enthusiast]

163. I had the privilege of voting for both McGovern and Carter.

They have been telling us to shut up for a long time.

[A HERETIC I AM]

89. "one of the prime reasons Nixon entered the Oval Office that year"

Was because Bobby Kennedy got shot, NOT because of "a combination of the negative perception that democrats were inept nanny-state spendthrifts and Nixon's spurious promise to end the war."

Kennedy would have won, because if I remember correctly, he was leading in the polls by a large margin.

I pretty much stopped reading the above at that spot.

[DinahMoeHum]

90. Thanks, samplegirl/JohnnyRingo.

"Perfection" as the enemy of the good is also known as the "Nothing-But-The-Best-For-The-Oppressed" syndrome.

And right now, too many of our fellow DUers are inflicted with this malady.

But my best rebuttal comes from one whom many of the dissenters here held as one of their own: the late, great Doris "Granny D" Haddock.

If what other GOTV pushers say here on DU isn't good enough for you (you know who you are - and so do I), then at least hear her out:

http://www.grannyd.com/speeches/sub-speeches/dont-stand-in-the-way-4-30-03.htm

(snip) (the boldface emphasis is mine - DMH)

There are many among us who will not support a candidate unless that candidate is perfect on every issue.
Politics is about winning.
For us, it is about winning to save lives and raise people up from poverty and illness and loneliness and injustice.
Those posturing on the left sometimes forget that. Don't tell me that you can't support a particular candidate because of this or that.
This isn't about you and your precious political standards.
It is about saving nature and our people. We are coming out to win, so please don't stand in our way.
When we have reasonable people in power, let us start our arguments again, for we can not move forward unless we have a decent government underneath us and a Bill of Rights to let us speak freely.

(snip)

Thanks for letting me rant.

[Bobbie Jo]

92. Huge K&R!

[polichick]

93. Yes, we need to be more specific and call for LIBERAL POLICIES, not just...

hope and change in general.

[byronius]

96. When Abbie Hoffman supported McGovern, he was vilified by his own.

McGovern would have been an awesome president, in hindsight. But because he wasn't perfect, he became the enemy.

I remember a party I was at full of young Green Party members right before the 2000 election, who were all absolutely horrified that I wore a pro-Gore t-shirt. Gore and Bush were exactly the same thing, they insisted. I was harshly mocked for not knowing this Absolute Truth. Al Gore, evil and darkheated as they come. Why, he might as well have been a Republican. No difference at all.

I wonder how they all feel about it now. Different, I'll bet.

When these conflicts arise, and the Left splinters (I read that book), and the imperfect becomes the enemy of the good, and the 'feet are held to the fire' until there is no more walking but there is a Walker, I am always reminded of the enlightened Weimar Republic newspaper editor who reserved all of his elegiac vitriol for the fledgling forces of democracy, neglecting to focus on the schemes of the hard-right parties to seize power because they were so obviously defeatable.

He and his family were some of the first to be carted off to the death camps. And the lesson I take from that is not that one should be 'blindly loyal' to ineffective bumblers -- but that absolutist scorn and uncivil hyperbole from otherwise good-hearted and wise people are often the small butterfly-wing-flaps that build to hurricanes that sweep millions to their deaths. Nature loves irony. Our perceptions are limited and often purely subjective and unrelated to deeper truths. Calling for the torches and pitchforks because we 'know' a moderate political figure is a 'bad man' is standard Foolish Primate.

My own opinion is that we don't deserve someone like Barack Obama. On balance, we're a generally doltish, short-sighted, crude nation, and we just got lucky. We're going to miss him terribly when he's gone.

[marions ghost]

114. It is because we have so few Liberals in government

If we could actually be represented, then you DLC centrists could have your turf and we could have ours, like in a real representative democracy.

This is not the "left splintering"-- this is the old left vs centrist divide within Dem party politics (helped along by some closet wingers).

No torches and pitchforks, just words. We deserve better government than we are getting, never mind whether we "deserve" Barack Obama or not...

Abbie Hoffman did not defeat McGovern, as I understand it.

[byronius]

120. Hold on there, a sec --

1) I'm no DLC centrist, not by a looooooong shot. And that inference is insulting.
2) Torches and pitchforks refer to absolute positions -- i.e., not voting for a candidate that is not 100% politically perfect, and allowing a right-winger to take office that then murders the earth.
3) 'Abbie Hoffman did not defeat McGovern' -- the point was that a far-left leader supported a left-moderate candidate in the interests of stopping Nixon, and was vilified for it. Kind of like what's happening on DU these days.

We're all screwed until Citizen's United is repealed. And I would love to see instant runoff voting and publically-financed elections. Until then, absolutism and uncivil discourse ('used-car salesman') from progressive lefties (like myself) is harmful to the general welfare.

[mountain grammy]

126. Agree!

[marions ghost]

132. C'mon...

"absolutism and uncivil discourse" ? ...

I don't consider "used car salesman" to be uncivil discourse. (I've gotten a good used car from one, after I got a bad used car from one...so 50/50 as far as bad people go). And I don't consider calling the president that to be "harmful to the general welfare" --that's just way too much hyperbole.

So what if Abbie Hoffman was vilified --it didn't stop Nixon, did it? I don't see the comparison to Obama's situation today. What that old reference proves is that you'll never get consensus. Why be a perfectionist demanding that everybody fall into line with your thinking then?

Sorry if you feel insulted by the reference to DLC centrist. (Don't take it personally. It's a message board). There are so many of them around here it's hard to tell who's what. I don't buy that this is a divide between the smart left (you) and the dumb left (those who would dare to heavily criticize the prez). It's more of a classic centrist-left divide.

Like you said, "we're all screwed" (because etc etc)--which I agree with. So why put your fingers in your ears and be insulted by what anybody says about the president? --your over-reaction makes us all look weak, if you want to apply blanket theories.

Let's address the big picture. "We're all screwed..."

[steve2470]

124. excellent post , please make this an OP nt

[kelliekat44]

152. Thank You!!! nt

[cheapdate]

160. That's what I'm saying, though less eloquently. Great post.

[pansypoo53219]

108. i bet carter did not have a cockblocking opposition thwarting any + all change,

THAT THE MAJORITY VOTED ON ON.
the media still kissing ronny rayguns ass, is not informing the majority.

[kristopher]

110. K&R

Great review and analysis.

[RobertEarl]

112. In short

The hippies were right.

Thanks. We knew it all along, good to see others coming to that reality.

[thucythucy]

117. Fantastic post.

Thanks for sharing this.

[B Calm]

121. So well written! Must read K&R

[JDPriestly]

122. My personal lessons from history:

I supported LBJ.

I have always voted Democratic and worked for Democrats.

But the NSA spying needs to be stopped. And Obama can stop it any time he wants.

I support many of the things Obama has done, but he has stood by while public school teachers are crushed across the country -- by his Secretary of Education among others, allowed the NSA the unbridled authority to collect data on the private lives of each and every one of us, and made very little effort to communicate the values of the Democratic Party to Americans.

Obama has not stood tall enough for the ideals of the Democratic Party. I bet if you asked the average American what the values are of Democrats and what they are of Republicans, no one could tell you what Democratic values are. They sure could tell you what Republican ones are.

Yet Democrats' values are more in tune with the values of ordinary Americans than are the values of Republicans.

Obama has not stood up for unions or for American jobs (much as he talks about them). He is pushing the passage of the TPP although it will hurt ordinary Americans, facilitate the theft of more of our jobs and result in an even higher trade imbalance.

Sorry. Very nice to support Democrats. I've always done it. But the Democratic Party needs to return the favor for all the work and effort and support I have given over the years. The Democratic Party and Obama in particular need to do a lot more to support me and others like me.

They could begin by making employers who have laid off American workers (especially those over 40) and sold their assets overseas or transferred plants to other countries pay really high taxes so that those who were laid off due to the job losses to other countries can be compensated and can live at a decent standard. I am not one of those people, but I know many who are. Our trade policy needs to be changed, and Obama is in the best position to advocate for that change and accomplish it.

[steve2470]

123. k&r nt

[Squinch]

127. Kick

[samplegirl]

128. Johnny brought me to D.U.

His passion and insight made me focus more on my political party. I believe people like him bring more democrats to the table. We are both old D.U.ers. We both remember when D.U. had a much more common ground and the only real bashing came from trolls that lurked in from the Free Republic. Not that everyone here that has an opinion is a troll but juries certainly were not needed.

[calimary]

131. Love this, samplegirl!

GREAT post. DO NOT let your momentary discontent keep you home on Election Day, or mouthing off in front of impressionable ears who will most certainly get the wrong take-away from it.

I don't care how many holes people punch in what Obama's doing or has done. At his worst, he's LIGHTYEARS better than the best republi-CON.

I'll take a shitty Democrat, yeah, even a dreaded Blue Dog, over the "best" republi-CON. Because the GOPer will take away my right to choose (and my daughter's), take away many minorities' right to vote (and I guarantee you - if they get away with that, they will come after women, next), and give aid and comfort to polluters and pirates over the little guy. AND all their little PNAC friends will ride into their Defense Dept and their National Security Adviser's offices and the Situation Room, and john mccain will get those five wars - AND MORE - that he was slobbering over during his last convention speech promoting myth wrongney.

[Number23]

135. I am a BIG JohnnyRingo fan. Have been for a long time

K&R

[UtahLib]

138. Thank you

for bringing JohnnyRingo's post to my attention, who, thankfully, is articulate and respectful enough to express an idea or opinion without finding it necessary to spew bile aimed at the President or fellow DU members.

I also find it encouraging to see that Skinner recced this post.

[pragmatic_dem]

140. false equivalence, demanding a President do the right thing, re: spying, fracking, war, torture, etc

Last edited Mon Mar 31, 2014, 10:59 PM - Edit history (1)

is not the same as supporting Ted Cruz. In fact, when Democratic Party conservatives tell non-conservatives to shut the fuck up, they are only helping to further the conservative group think at the "center" of both parties.

The Republican party agrees with many/most issues Democratic Party conservatives agree with - corporations legislating public policy, defense policy, spying, fracking, offshoring, free trade agreements, anti-union, privatization, increased retirement age, market based solutions, etc.

When Democrats turn their backs on basic principals of fairness and justice while embracing Republican economic values, they aren't helping Democrats, they are only helping Republicans.

To everyone not satisfied with the status quo, to those who have the courage to stand up and demand something better, to those who have vision and passion for working families left behind as Washington festers in an orgy of corruption, keep the pressure on.

You don't understand how important this is. Don't let the conservatives win, no matter which party they claim to belong to.

[GoneFishin]

142. Agreed. I will not vote conservative.

I also will not vote for anyone prone to getting us into more wars, or who is liable to continue to fill cabinet posts with the corporate bandits whom they are supposed to regulate. Etc..

[pragmatic_dem]

153. thanks for have the courage to demand something better than what we have nt

[JohnnyRingo]

146. You make my point completely.

I posted this, in part, to point out how important public perception is.

Your perception of democrats is one of hot or cold. You see people like yourself as a "non conservative", and anyone to your right as "conservative". In between is apparently a void. "Moderate" is obviously not in your lexicon.

I can assure you, if you speak your views to people in public, they will most assuredly perceive you as a far left liberal. Indeed, that's the handle I get from everyone I talk to, and I'm almost definitely more of a moderate than you. One person I know from the Tea Party even ducked once after he called me that, like he fully expected me to take a swing at him for what he perceived such a foul name.

I believe there's a far right, a far left, and a very wide center in this country (or what you call conservatives). It's this majority somewhere in the middle that actually elects our presidents. Not everyone absorbs news like people here in DU. In fact, I dare to say the biggest majority of Americans scan the headlines, check the sports & weather, and get on with their day. If you don't believe me, go to a bar and start discussing your specific political concerns with any random person and see how long that seat stays occupied.

When you speak about your unwillingness to compromise your personal issues, you throw down a gauntlet that I consider a weak bluff. I'll never for a minute believe you'll cast a vote for someone like Paul Ryan just because you didn't get the candidate you wanted, nor do I think you'll sit out the election.

If you demand the party nominate someone like Warren, you have to understand the majority of the country will perceive her as a liberal and see what the GOP is offering. A candidate like the self defined socialist Bernie Sanders is even worse in the eye of centrists. Many just ignorantly hear the word "Communist". Republicans thought they had a middle of the road candidate in Romney until he opened his big mouth at a taped fundraiser. Many have pinpointed that as the beginning of his downfall. He foolishly exposed himself as a representitive of the extremely wealthy, and Americans don't like extremists.

If you want to see such candidates as Bernie or Elizabeth meet with success at the national polls then you have your work cut out for you. It took republicans decades to sully the word liberal to the point that many have to use the word "progressive" or "populist", and you have to change that perception to one of a positive image. You have me sold, but there's the huge middle of the country you have to convince that wants a president that does little good, and hopefully no harm. That's quite a PR job you have ahead of you.

Perhaps you thought you can just put up a candidate with the slogan "It's time for a liberal America!" and walk away with a victory. With public perception of what that means, I wouldn't bet an election on it, and I'm confident the party won't either.

I made my point (again) about how public perception is key to winning elections, and I'm not going to bicker with you about it in endless replies. Besides, the two fingers I type with are getting sore.

[pragmatic_dem]

151. Thanks for the reply, I talk about principals

you talk about personal issues.

The fact is, Democratic Party conservatives have been beating down non-conservative voices on some of the seminal issues of our generation. These are soul sucking compromises of convenience that could have come straight from the Reagan White House.

The broad center you speak of isn't static - it has moved right at a rapid pace. It's like global warming - you can deny it, but the science knows that is a lie. So what do you do? Burn more coal since the planet is dying anyway? Ignore it and it will go away?

Let's examine a few of my "personal" issues.

- Off shore drilling

- Being against Spying before being for it, before being against some of it, or maybe Congress should decide

- Eric Holder's refusal to prosecute Wall Street crime, or literally anyone who matters.

- Spying on the Press

- Patriot Act

- Amnesty for torture

- An SEC completely unreformed

- Surge in Afghanistan at 1/2 a trillion dollars that killed as many people in 2 years than Bush did in his two terms. For what?

- Pelosi running around making sure everyone votes to support spying.

- Anre Duncan and privatization and a fucking mess called common core

- No effective insurance or cost reform for a majority of people (those not eligible for ACA because they don't need it if they have some kids and make $65K a year, you know, we're rich, I guess).

- Trans-pacific partnership program.

- Offshoring and H1B abuses.

- Income disparity, poverty, median wage, education costs - no change in 40 year trend.

These are massive, generation spanning policies and outcomes that cannot be undone. Each and every one has unleashed a moral hazard.

As far as Ted Cruz, he only serves the conservatives in both parties. No matter what Democratic Leadership does, no matter the duplicity, nor the betrayal, it's always going to be the lesser of evils.

Fuck that.

This isn't compromise, it is surrender - a detached, soulless defeat where tangible progress is replaced by a rhetorical illusion and "branding". It's sound bites and blue ink masquerading as principals.

You wasted many words to tell us all that liberals should stay in the closet because we embarrass you in front of your corporate friends.

[GoneFishin]

167. Yep. And I am not swayed by the meme that "a sliver of success is better than no success at all".

That's a bullshit argument that works most of the time if every disillusioned voter believes that he/she is the only one who is disgusted and disappointed. And keeping people in that frame of mind requires that people be discouraged from publicly conversing and sharing their disappointment, and be berated as "expecting too much", "being unrealistic", "wasting their time", or otherwise destined to be on a losing team. Those are all arguments that I would make if I was trying to suck the spirit out of a populist movement.

Fuck that. If I vote for a person that I believe represents my interests and don't allow myself to be fast-talked into voting for someone who I don't believe is the best person for the job, then in that sense I win.

[pragmatic_dem]

168. The policies of the conservatives in this admin have moved the nation hard right for generations

including the judiciary (prosecute any Wall Street crime lately?, Right, forgot, that's just a personal issue).

You would do better as a Republican attacking the Tea Baggers and telling them to move left. Yet here you are, stumping for spying, TPP, on and on.

You are supporting horrible conservative policies (mass citizen surveillance is not "moderate&quot and telling Democrats they need to move more to the right.

You are a conservative (moderate or not). You are the popular kids in Washington JR High defending an impulsive conservative policy agenda supplied by rich benefactors.

If/when Democratic leadership loses elections, it's their own fault. They decide who to listen to, what strategy to employ and if you can't handle the political competition for ideas and policy from grass roots and millions of voters, then that's not our fault.

When Democrats lose elections, it's like the $40 million/year CEO blaming the $7/hr workers for being bad workers.

Stop telling us to shut the fuck up let conservatives like yourself dominate policy without any input from voters who are demanding something better..

[GoneFishin]

170. You are preaching to the choir. Sorry I did not make that clear.

As I mentioned, I will not vote conservative.

[JohnnyRingo]

171. You're last sentence is deeply insulting

Besides being incredibly arrogant, It points out what a narrow view you have of people and politics. Your attitude is clearly that I'm either 100% with you, or I'm a conservative corporate shill. I really don't think you have the ability to see slight nuance at all.

I don't care that you think appealing to the majority of voters who live life in Middle America is a simple matter of "my way or the highway", but if you want to hijack the Democratic Party and take it with you to the far left, you have some heavy lifting ahead of you and I think you have neither the ambition nor the ability. When you define me as a "conservative", you're breathing in rarefied air. The next time I'm out and get accused of being a teary-eyed liberal, I can cite you as the most credible judge of political character. That'll shut those Tea Baggers up when they discover that I'm just a carbon copy of themselves.

I'm not going to take it too much to heart though, because you're living life in a transparent bluff. When election day 2016 arrives, we'll be casting our vote for the same candidate. You can bluster and threaten all you want. You can cry about your uncompromising sanctimonious ideals for another two years, but in the end you'll help elect the very same "conservative corporate candidate" that I intend to volunteer my time and donations to, and you can pick back up right where you left off.

I'm not going to "waste" any more words on you, so you can leave the closet door open and continue your loud & proud work of alienating people who support good common sense democrats like Carter, Clinton, and Obama from your cause.

[JohnnyRingo]

172. On a final note...

Since I replied to your last insulting reply I kept thinking I'd heard your brand of rhetoric somewhere before, and I finally put my finger on it.

You remind me of my youngest son. He too believes there are two kinds of people in the world, but in his case, they're the seven million righteous Jehovah's Witnesses like himself who will be granted an everlasting life by his creator... and the other 6.9 billion of us. There is no one between.

He sees no distinction whatsoever between Mother Teresa and Jeffery Dahmer, both are equally damned in his eyes (and God's), because they followed the same wrong spiritual path through life and failed to see the light that shines on people like himself.

His beliefs have alienated the entire family, and he even smugly referred to his deeply Christian 86 year old grandmother as a "worldly person" - one who will depart this existence in a soulless end - which is not unlike you calling other democrats blind tools of the corporations.

My son's total lack of acceptance was instrumental in moving me from garden variety agnostic to devoted atheist. Close friends of the family have taken to not answering the door when a group of them call because of his arrogant self defined level of purity.

I don't know what you do for a living, but community organizer you ain't.

[revmclaren]

145. Thank you for the post.

k&r

[NBachers]

148. I like the post. I can't handle the squabbling family disfunctional dinner table commentary.

I bet you never expected this to blow up in your face like this, did you, SampleGirl?

I think I'll leave the table, go to my room, lie on my bed, and read a book or listen to the radio. Let the rest of the family scream at each other on into the night.

[Cha]

156. Thank you, samplegirl and JohnnyRingo!

[sheshe2]

157. Awesome!

Kick!

[B Calm]

164. kick