President Obama's Disingenuous Attack on Outsourcing

[brentspeak]

While we can all agree that Romney is a slimeball who shouldn't be allowed within a mile of the Oval Office, let's get real about where Obama himself really stands on the issue of American livelihoods moving overseas. (Caveat: Friedersdorf, while pointing out Obama's inconsistencies on the issue, himself seems to something of a globalization cheerleader -- and not one who can provide a convincing rationale to back up his support for it).

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/07/president-obamas-disingenuous-attack-on-outsourcing/259851/

President Obama's Disingenuous Attack on Outsourcing

Jul 16 2012, 7:30 AM ET
by Conor Friedersdorf, Atlantic staff writer

...

He (Obama) started playing this game (criticizing his opponents' support for job offshoring) during the Democratic primary in 2007, insisting that if elected president he would renegotiate NAFTA. To no one's surprise, he wasn't in office a month before he reneged on that promise. He was pretending to be someone who believed the populist critique of free trade agreements, but like the academic and business elites with whom he staffs his administration, Obama buys into the conventional case for free trade and never wanted to renegotiate NAFTA. He still doesn't, no matter how many times he complains that "Romney's firms shipped jobs to Mexico." In the long run, capital and labor mobility either benefit us or make us no worse off, insofar as global competition cannot be escaped. I tire of Obama pretending his position is different, and feel especially sorry for the voters he's misleading.

snip

And who heads the President's Council on Jobs and Competitiveness? Jeffrey Immelt, CEO of General Electric. "Since Immelt took over GE in 2001, the company has lost 37,000 American jobs, and added 25,000 jobs overseas," Cole Stengler writes in a Huffington Post article titled "Obama Jobs Council Packed With Outsourcing Companies." I don't think there's anything wrong with that. Competition from foreign workers is going to disrupt labor markets for the foreseeable future; a company that foreswore outsourcing would be neither efficient nor viable in the long run. If Obama simply disagreed that would be one thing; instead Obama pretends to think Romney is malign for his indirect complicity in outsourcing years ago, even as he praises and elevates various business elites who are directly responsible for massive outsourcing right now.

snip

Look at what he does and ponder who he is. Were America divided into two economic tribes, the "American protectionists" and the "Acela corridor elites," Obama would belong to the latter. He surrounds himself with guys like Tim Geithner and Larry Summers, who recently said, "There are those today who would resist the process of international integration; that is a prescription for a more contentious and less prosperous world. We should not oppose offshoring or outsourcing." Obama's present strategy is so pernicious because he is misleading the tribe of "American protectionists" into thinking that he shares their populist attitudes. Nonsense. If reelected to another term, he's no more going to stop outsourcing or end offshore bank accounts (though some of Romney's seem shady) than he's going to renegotiate NAFTA. He's going to keep staffing his economic team with establishment elites from Wall Street and Ivy League universities. Any blue-collar populist who votes for Obama is going to be and feel betrayed. They're going to have less faith in politics. Told that a pol shares their perspective, only to find out that they were misled, some of them will wind up radicalized.

[ProSense]

1. Oh look

a RW trying to stir shit:

They'd be better off if Obama were just honest with them: Free trade, outsourcing, and Swiss bank accounts aren't going anywhere, regardless of who is elected in November and sworn in next year. In America, the left has no champion on these issues. Obama would be within his rights to claim that he has a plan to marginally reduce outsourcing, but that plan is premised on the notion that bad policy presently creates an incentive for companies to shift their labor abroad; it's therefore at odds with the idea that a CEO whose company outsourced is a pernicious man or bad leader. By the logic of Obama's own plan, tax policy is the problem, not guys like Romney. Do you know what figure I'd love to see? The number of Obama staffers and advisers who've outsourced a job at some time versus the number who've ever had one of their jobs outsourced.

In an interview with journalist Matt Lewis, Friedersdorf stated that he has right-leaning views but that he does not consider himself to be a doctrinal conservative or a member of the conservative movement.[9]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conor_Friedersdorf

Thanks for bringing this to light.

[SidDithers]

7. Well done...

funny how often "the left" has to rely on sources from the right to attack Obama.

Do they bring them to DU? You better believe it!

Sid

[Romulox]

9. GE's outsourcer-in-chief Jeffrey Immelt is a "Rightwing Source".

He heads the President's "Council on Jobs and Competitiveness".

http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/advisory-boards/jobs-council

[SidDithers]

11. Conor Friedersdorf is Jeffrey Immelt's nom de plume?...

Sid

[Romulox]

14. Brilliant duck, even for you, Sid. I guess you can't defend Mr. Immelt. I wouldn't try, either. nt

[SidDithers]

17. I never mentioned Immelt...

Conor Friedersdorf is the author of the article.

Try to keep up.

Sid

[Romulox]

20. *I* did. "Discussion" board, remember? nt

[SidDithers]

24. Yeah, I know *you* did...

but the subthread is about Conor Friedersdorf.

See that first reply by ProSense?

Sid

[Romulox]

26. NNN0LHI is obviously wrong. YOU are the best! nt

[Maraya1969]

155. I think they are talking about a duck named Sid.

That's as far as I can get.

[sabrina 1]

116. Was Freidersdorf wrong that Immelt is in the President's cabinet?

Did you know that Immelt is a REGISTERED REPUBLICAN?? Why is a REGISTERED REPUBLICAN, a 'cut taxes-for-the-rich former Reagan guy, in a Democratic Cabinet?

Did you know that Free Republic applauded the appointment of Immelt to a Democratic President's cabinet? Speaking of 'rightwing sources'?

Do you dispute this fact, or are you attempting to deflect from it? It IS a fact and a very disturbing one which we Democrats in the US hope to correct. No REPUBLICANS in a DEMOCRATIC President's cabinet. We vote for Democrats to rid government of Republicans. So why have so many of them, AFTER we kicked them out, been appointed to this presiden'ts cabinet?

Or maybe you don't mind 'rightwing sources' like Immelt, just anyone talking about it? Trust me, since you are not here in the US, this is a huge issue for Democrats right now. US Democrats want assurances that NO REPUBLICANS end up in our government. THAT is what we are working for, to rid this government of REPUBLICANS.

[SidDithers]

123. Yes...nt

Sid

[sabrina 1]

131. Why did this administration appoint Republicans to the President's cabinet? Are you saying

this is not true?

[Iggy]

227. And Throw In Wall St. Casino Insiders

like Geithner, Larry (Mr. "2010 will be 'Recovery Summer' for our economy&quot Summers and Mr.
Rubin, who while not a paid member of the staff certainly gets Obama's ear frequently. ALL of these
guys are status quo supporting losers

[1StrongBlackMan]

170. Okay, Let's look at what Immelt has recommended recently ...

You know, since he took the post ... which is really the only relevant measure ...

Train workers for today's open jobs. There are more than two million open jobs in the U.S., in part because employers can't find workers with the advanced manufacturing skills they need. The private sector must quickly form partnerships with community colleges, vocational schools and others to match career training with real-world hiring needs.

• Streamline permitting. Cut red tape so job-creating construction and infrastructure projects can move forward. The administration can take a few simple steps to streamline the process of obtaining permits, without undercutting the protections that our regulatory system provides.

.• Boost jobs in travel and tourism. This industry is one of America's largest employers, but the U.S. has lost significant market share. By making it easier to visit the U.S. through improved visa processes, we can win back market share in travel and tourism and create hundreds of thousands of jobs.

• Facilitate small-business loans. Help small-business owners obtain the information and support they need to access Small Business Administration funding. At Jobs Council town halls in Dayton and Minneapolis, small-business owners expressed frustration about the challenges in obtaining financing and assistance. We must move quickly to allow easier access to SBA funding. SBA Administrator Karen Mills is already tackling this challenge, and the administration should accelerate and prioritize these efforts.

• Put construction workers back to work. More than two million construction workers don't have work. Every city in America has commercial buildings that can be made more energy efficient. Both the private and public sectors can step up to create good jobs and save energy.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304259304576380323311523538.html

No out-sourcing there ...

Well, how about here:

The jobs council says that Congress and the White House should work together to bolster the teaching profession and develop more partnerships between businesses and higher education.

The council also wants tax breaks for private industry engaged in research and development. It also says that while corporate taxes should be lowered, they should also be broadened in a way that impacts more companies -- especially those that now rely on loopholes to avoid paying corporate taxes.

The jobs council also called upon the White House to consider "expanding and expediting the domestic production of fossil fuels -- including allowing more access to oil, gas, and coal opportunities on federal lands."

http://money.cnn.com/2012/01/17/news/economy/Obama_jobs_council/index.htm

None here either ...

So how is what you are talking about relevant to today?

[sabrina 1]

229. Letting Global Oil Cartels have more access to our resources is not 'outsourcing'?

Promoting the coal industry is progressive, how exactly? Looks like they are trying to turn back decades of hard-fought-for environmental protection legislation and bring in even more Global Corps to make use of and profit from our resources. As they do everywhere while at the same time, destroying environments all over the world. These are progressive policies?

And as for the 'partnering of the private and public sector' in education? You might want to look at who is running some of those private Corps that have managed to get their hands on Public Education Funds. Check out Turkey eg.

[1StrongBlackMan]

230. Your concerns are noted ...

But have nothing to do with the out-sourcing of jobs.

[Tippy]

13. Right on...

[Tarheel_Dem]

46. And the question then becomes when will "enough be enough"? Short, sweet, and to the point.

When we've got DU'ers using rightwing opposition research, at some point it has to become crystal clear to admin that the agenda is not on the up & up, and against their own mission statement.

[RC]

109. Riiight... Can't knock down the message, so you go after the messenger.

Is the message true? Most probably, it is. And that continues many problems in this country for most of us.
The first step in solving a problem is recognizing there is a problem. And how can you do that when people keep excusing and ignoring Obama's faults?
We need to recognize Obama is a Right of Center Corporatist and act accordingly. And no, this has nothing to do with Wing-nut Romney.

[NNN0LHI]

10. You are the best ProSense

You spot these "nice folks", right away. I admire you a lot.

Sure happy you are here.



Don

[Romulox]

15. Best WHAT?

[woo me with science]

31. ...

[Edweird]

34. So.. you're not against RW policy from 'dems', just offended that someone you consider RW

pointed it out?

[ProSense]

42. No

"So.. you're not against RW policy from 'dems', just offended that someone you consider RW"

I'm against asshole RW shills and their enablers. You see, they post distortions and hope other people will follow them down the rabbit hole to disprove their assertions.

The fact that it's a RW asshole shilling from Romney should be enough. I mean, are you implying that you only agree with the part that's anti-Obama and not the part that's pro-Romney?

[uponit7771]

61. FUDrs work thsi board HARD! Thx for your insght, I don't think I can believe them at all...

...they're information is rarely not caveated

[Edweird]

65. How's that renegotiation of NAFTA coming along?

[Edweird]

64. I am stating clearly (no need to imply) that I am against RW policy without regard to the source.

[ProSense]

68. So

"I am stating clearly (no need to imply) that I am against RW policy without regard to the source."

...cheering a piece that clearly advocates RW policy by explicitly stating that its not the problem is cool?

Tools are tools, and the author of the OP is a tool.

[Edweird]

70. There is no 'cheering' by me here.

Last edited Wed Jul 18, 2012, 02:03 PM - Edit history (1)

No matter how you may wish it so, it just isn't the case.

[brentspeak]

211. "The fact that it's a RW asshole shilling from Romney should be enough."

Let's factcheck ProSense.

From Conor Friedersdorf's July 10, 2012 Atlantic column:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/07/a-brief-reflection-on-lying-politicians/259609/

A Brief Reflection on Lying Politicians

Mitt Romney's unusually frequent flip-flops, shameless misrepresentations of the truth, and brazen pandering has caused some pundits to marvel at how dishonorable he is. "How did this happen?" Scott Galupo asks. "How did we come to this pass, where a man like Mitt Romney -- whose candidacy represents a breathtakingly cynical, borderline nihilistic pursuit of power on behalf of a tiny sliver of the population -- sits within striking distance of the highest office in the land?"

Ok, so up till now, you managed to hoodwink an entire thread-full of forum readers into believing that I linked to an article written by a Romney supporter, when, in fact, I simply linked to an article written by a typical Beltway type who likes Obama's neoliberal, free trade policies -- but who doesn't like that Obama pretends to be a populist on the issue at the same time.

Your entire effort at issue distraction on this thread is revealed as a total fraud Thanks for playing -- you walked right into it.

[grantcart]

127. Stirs the shit and runs away.

[emulatorloo]

163. Typical MO

[JNelson6563]

128. And the rec list is a who's who

of similar MOs.

[Bobbie Jo]

220. +1

You got that right.

[woo me with science]

2. The denial needs to stop.

The denial needs to stop.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=146626

We need a plan to take our government back from corporate profiteers, because voting is not enough anymore.



Thank you for this post. K&R





Education: "The Big Enchilada"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002967097


Obama and Romney Both Backing Secret Job-killing Deal? Trans-Pacific Partnership lurks
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002946322

White House weakened EPA soot proposal, documents show
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014169492

Cory Booker chosen to help draft national Democratic party platform
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014164848

Republicans AND Democrats were working hard to kill the oldest and largest union
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014165360

Check Out The Latest Huge Purchases By The Pentagon
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002957803

Serf city here we come ....Signed by President Barack Obama on Friday
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002921492

Cost of medical care in June climbed 0.7%, highest gain since 2010
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002961996

My Hospital Bill was $119,000 for 5 days
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002962669

[antigop]

93. Don't forget SOS DLC Hillary and outsourcing

http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/ndtv-exclusive-hillary-clinton-on-fdi-mamata-outsourcing-and-hafiz-saeed-full-transcript-207593

Hillary Clinton: So you are talking about the outsourcing of US jobs to India. We know it's been going on for many years now and it's part of our economic relationship with India and I think there are advantages with it that have certainly benefitted many parts of our country and there are disadvantages that go to the need to improve the job fields of our own people and create a better economic environment so it's like anything like the pluses and minuses.

Yeah, there are "advantages" to outsourcing that have "certainly benefitted many parts of our country" -- the CORPORATIONS have benefitted.

But what else would you expect from Ms. DLC?

<edit to add> How long before we are called "haters" or "saboteurs"? Countdown...3...2...1...

[woo me with science]

105. Excellent link. Thank you.

I just added it to another post of mine.

Name-calling and bids to argue about anything but the actual policies are the only possible responses. Third Way messaging is inherently hopeless, because it burdens its messengers with an impossible task: trying to convince people that what they have seen, heard, and experienced with their own eyes and ears isn't happening.

Thank you for this great post. The denial has to stop if we are to have any chance of stopping the metastasizing corporate assault on Americans.

[antigop]

110. +1000. Thanks,woo. n/t

[Bandit]

3. Sometimes the truth is very painful and there are many here that are very disappointed

in not getting what they thought they voted for...However what is the alternative? We live in a world of avarice and greed, and there really is not much any of us can do about that....Money now has more rights than the average citizen....

[antigop]

95. and the ones pointing out the truth are called "haters" or "saboteurs". n/t

[uponit7771]

4. This sounds FUDr-ish, at the least assume Obama is a dictator and congress is something he can

..."fight", "be strong", "speechafy" or whatever the fuck Obama is supposed to do to COMPEL baggers to love America over their ideals.

[eridani]

218. Wrong. The assumption is that Obama could have appointed people

--other than Immelt, Geithner and Summers (and other corporate whores) to be his advisors. People who would offer economic advice benefitting the 99%, not the 1%.

[Dragonfli]

221. That is the issue they will dance around without actually addressing

They dance so well perhaps they can work with horses so that they too can enter into the Olympics.

The truth is, they are right wing "Democrats", many in name only, that actually like his right wing appointments and financial policies.

Often they will even defend the bankers, Tree something (forget the full name) is fond of saying there are no investigations into bank fraud because no laws were violated, clearly third way minds find nothing wrong with 1% shenanigans.

They do love to dance around the truth once it is stated, Pro's evasion of the issue you mentioned and refusal to answer Sabrina's questions is epic and worthy of equestrian fame.


This is why I hate posting during election time, it turns into 90% apologetic spin desighned to excuse (and thereby encourage) some right wing Republican policy re-branding.

I loose patience with it, I prefer the truth and the "good fight" to oppose more than the Republican figurehead de-joir, but rather the bad Republican policies that continue to aid in the theft from the many for the few.
This requires opposing both Republican politicians AND Republican policy, even if the corporate third way think tank and leadership sign off on such policy.

[Sheepshank]

5. It's really not too surprising you champion a guy who crapped on OW n/t

you seem to search high and low for articles that crap on Obama. Your preamble doesn't change your continued and usual rhetoric.

[Enrique]

6. fortunately Obama isn't talking about himself

I've said before, I hope Obama goes negative and stays negative. If we're talking about outsourcing, I don't want to hear him promise to end it, because I won't believe it. On the other hand I have no problem with him attacking Romney on it.

[Romulox]

8. Well, I don't have any way to refute this. Is it ok to cast aspersions against the OP, instead?

Perhaps saying "FUD!" a few times will make this go away?

[Egalitarian Thug]

101. Surely people are not gullible enough to fall for this obvious a ruse?

Oh wait, yes they are.

[Tom Rinaldo]

12. I appreciate the importance of discussing this issue

And I don't mind at all seeing this discussion on a Democratic message board That's part of what i like about Democrats in general - a willingness to ask questions and ponder implications.

For the record I am personally officially now is a state of suspension about potential negatives regarding the Obama Administration, in regards to the big picture anyway. I might speak up about a concern on a specific issue if the outcome regarding that issue still hangs in the balance and can still influenced by public reaction.

Beyond that though now is the time when I close ranks behind Barack Obama. He is clearly articulating important counter arguments to destructive Republican policy objectives, while still standing in the way of many of them, and a Romney Administration and possible Republican Congress would be a disaster. Start out thinking about the Supreme Court and go from there.

I have been a progressive critic of Obama at times in the past and no doubt I will be again if he gets reelected. For 4 months out of 4 years I am willing to defer that role. We are in those 4 months now.

[woo me with science]

16. Absolutely not. Election year is the MOST important time to speak up.

This is perhaps the only time left when we people without boatloads of corporate money have at least some leverage to influence policy.

[ProSense]

21. The OP

Absolutely not. Election year is the MOST important time to speak up.

This is perhaps the only time left when we have at least some leverage to influence policy.

...author is an anti-Occupy Wall Street asshole shilling for Romney.

But hey, what does it matter as long as it's anti-Obama, right?

Occupy!

[SidDithers]

25. Any port in a storm...nt

Sid

[woo me with science]

27. Ignore the policy. Attack the person.

How familiar.

Third Way messaging is so difficult. It requires a desperate imposition of Alice in Wonderland perceptions, in which you must convince your audience that what they have been observing and living for years and years isn't really the case.

Obama and Romney Both Backing Secret Job-killing Deal? Trans-Pacific Partnership lurks
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002946322


You keep doing your job, Prosense. I'd rather see it in your hands than many others...

[ProSense]

29. Occupy! n/t

[bigtree]

43. an anti-occupy shill for Romney

. . . a critic of outsourcing?

Who's next? Norquist bashing Obama over tax policy?

How about we get some Rice quotes about Obama foreign policy?

Maybe some Cheney quotes about crony capitalism?

[emulatorloo]

142. You are full of shit if you think it is "OK" to cozy up to a right wing shill

just because it supports your agenda.

It is hypocritical to be pro-occupy and embrace an anti-occupy shill.

[politicasista]

141. Sniff. You may be on to something n/t

[brush]

28. Absolutely not?

You're for Romney I suppose. If not, use your head. 3 sitting SCOTUS judges are in their 70s. Do you want repug Romney appointing their replacements with more right wingers like Scalia and Thomas who will set the course of the country on a hard right turn for the next 30-40 years? Get ready for lackey, service jobs for everyone but the rich. They have no concerns about working and middle class people. India and China (where they are outsourcing jobs to) will have, if they don't already, much, much larger middle classes than we do to buy their corporate products. Get smarter.
(This comment is directed at the poster)

[woo me with science]

30. "You're for Romney, I suppose."

Good grief.

[ProSense]

33. "Good grief"?

What's the difference between being for Romney and jumping on the bandwagon of a shit-stirring RW asshole shilling for Romney?

[emulatorloo]

145. You deserve that. I have never seen you post anything anti-Republican

You've aligned yourself here with an anti-occupy flak.

You never criticize Republicans. They are always given a free pass.

All you have posted are hyperbolic attacks against Obama and Democrats.

I have no clue what your agenda is, but it all adds up to defeating Obama and electing Romney.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

86. You asked, "Do you want repug Romney appointing their replacements with more right wingers like

like Scalia and Thomas who will set the course of the country on a hard right turn for the next 30-40 years?"

Nope. I'ld rather that Obama would do that.

[emulatorloo]

156. Bullshit. Which Obama appointee = Scalia or Thomas?

NOT A FUCKING ONE OF THEM>

[AnotherMcIntosh]

174. You are mistaken. Obama did not appoint either Scalia or Thomas.

He did, however, appoint Elena Kagan.

With respect to criminal cases, do you believe that she is a liberal or a progessive?

Strangely enough, some well respected attorneys and legal scholars do not. Please see, for example, Charles Weisselberg's analysis entitled Elena Kagan and the Death of Miranda.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/charles-weisselberg/elena-kagan-and-the-death_b_596447.html

As early as 2010, he wrote:

On June 1, the U.S. Supreme Court finally dealt Miranda a death blow. Elena Kagan, Obama's nominee for the Supreme Court, was complicit in Miranda's demise. Her participation may give some insight into her views on the rights of criminal defendants, and her understanding of how the law affects ordinary people.

In Berghuis v. Thompkins, the decision announced today, the Court ruled 5-4 that a suspect has to speak in order to assert the right to remain silent. Van Chester Thompkins was given his Miranda warnings and remained quiet for almost 3 hours. During that time, officers continued the interrogation and Thompkins eventually made an admission. A federal court found that he had asserted his right to remain silent by actually remaining silent, and that officers should have ended the questioning. The Supreme Court reversed.

The majority said that if officers give Miranda warnings to a suspect, they may begin questioning and continue to question unless the person clearly and unambiguously says he wants to remain silent or wants a lawyer. Police do not have to expressly ask a suspect to waive their rights. If the person shows incredible stamina -- like Thompkins -- and manages to remain silent through hours of intense interrogation, he will have "waived" his rights if he eventually caves in to pressure.

And the Court has placed a substantial burden on suspects to invoke their rights with great precision. A number of lower courts applying the clear and unambiguous standard have been quite demanding, finding that statements such as "I think it's about time for me to stop talking" and "I think I would like to talk to a lawyer" are not clear invocations of the right to remain silent or the right to counsel.

In contrast to the majority that formally transformed Miranda into a rule protecting the police instead of protecting the accused, Justice Sotomayor (joined by retiring Justice John Paul Stevens and Justices Breyer and Ginsburg) wrote a dissent which explains how the majority opinion rewrote Miranda. It's worth reading.

As also noted by Charles Weisselberg, Miranda's safeguards for suspects are now mostly symbolic and rendered meaningless. "So long as officers give warnings, their interrogation practices will be largely immune from any legal challenge. As the justices have noted in other cases, if warnings are given and a statement is obtained, it is very difficult for a defendant to contend that his admissions were coerced."

You think that Justice Kagan is a liberal or progressive with respect to criminal issues?


Also as noted in Harvard Law & Policy Review, Death by a Thousand Cuts
http://hlpronline.com/2010/09/death-by-a-thousand-cuts-miranda-and-the-supreme-court%E2%80%99s-2009-10-term/

In a trilogy of decisions from that term, (2) the Court eviscerated Miranda safeguards, reversed state and federal decisions finding violations of Miranda, and, in the view of dissenting justices, “turn(ed) Miranda upside down.”(3) As an attorney for the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers lamented, “(a)t this rate, what’s left of Miranda will be only what we see on TV.”

[emulatorloo]

176. "I'ld rather that Obama would do that." Which is bullshit speculation that

implies Obama will appoint someone like Scalia and Thomas.

It is what you said, now own it.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

188. No matter how many times you use the word "bullshit," Kagan's positions on criminal cases is coming

out on a case by case basis, and you cannot transform her positions in criminal cases to being liberal or progessive ones.

As a matter of fact, when you want to acknowledge that Kagan is not a liberal or progressive Justice with respect to criminal cases, why don't you send a signal in this post or elsewhere by simply using the word "bullshit." Everytime that you do so, you and I will know that you are acknowledging that.

[emulatorloo]

192. Kagan was your attempt to change the subject from me calling you on your speculative bullshit.

that Obama will appoint Scalias and Thomases. First you tried to change the subject with snark, then you tried to distract with some off topic article about Kagan.

Anybody with a lick of sense knows Obama will do no such thing.

No matter how many times you try to change the subject, you said what you said.

You said it, you own it.

[Tom Rinaldo]

35. I was and am a strong supporter of OWS

OWS did a damn good job getting heard in a non election year. Actually i think policy is more easily leveraged at almost any time other than during the full heat of a Presidential campaign. The peak campaign season is mostly about spin and messaging, and throwing the other "guy" off message. The question is always which team will break stride. Policy is not being made now - there is too much else the political class must concentrate on Behind the scene political alliances that may drive future policy might be being formed now - but the public debate has little to do with that.

OWS did a magnificent job driving the public debate in 2011. I think that OWS cleared a way for Obama to follow up in his campaign message along some of the lines that OWS laid out. Outsourcing and its implications for workers IS being widely discussed, and people ARE being educated as a result. I think our job now is to sharpen, support and amplify the attack lines against Romney that Obama employs. They serve progressive interests.

[DevonRex]

54. Tom is talking about election TOS.

I respect him for his adherence to the rules. It makes him a really good guy in my book. It also means he's someone I'll listen to when the election is over.

[Tippy]

19. Thank you for your post..it is right on..

The most important thing to remember. At all cost we must re-elect Obama..If we don't we end up with Romney or somone even worse

[karynnj]

72. True, the choice is not Bernie Sanders or Obama, it is Romney or Obama

This is not the time to argue that Obama is not "left" enough. I like your exception - when an issue hangs in the balance.

[DevonRex]

18. So now Brentspeak is bringing a RWer's attacks

on Obama to DU. Better believe it! LOL!

[dionysus]

37. he has some rather putrid shoes to fill, doesn't he?

[DevonRex]

40. Yes he does! Got Febreeze?

[Tarheel_Dem]

49. But for how much longer? This is against Skinner's own mission statement. How much longer?

[DevonRex]

52. I guess it depends

on whether he keeps it up and if Skinner says enough is enough.

BBI got so bored with the game that his sources were clearly RW, meaning we didn't have to Google them first to figure it out.

[SidDithers]

55. Yeah. Using the Weekly Standard was kinda obvious...nt

Sid

[DevonRex]

57. Hey Sid

Are you keeping track yet?

[Tarheel_Dem]

77. But with or without the use of rightwing sources, Skinner has to have recognized the pattern.

I mean, what does this even mean, if it's not applied to everyone?

"We know we went through some pretty ugly periods here during the Obama presidency, but at this point it looks like almost everyone here is on-board with President Obama already, and we don't anticipate that changing. (To be clear, you don't get a green light to relentlessly trash President Obama if you claim you are going to vote for him. As the TOS say: If you are bashing, trashing, undermining, or depressing turnout for our candidates during election season, we'll assume you are rooting for the other side.)"

The use of rightwing sources certainly qualifies as "trashing". I realize there are third party advocates here, who think if they don't advocate directly, they can bash and trash, and it will have the same suppressive impact. And then there are the resident rightwing provocateurs, who describe the president's attacks on Rmoney as "ineffective", or "bland"; etc., so he should back off. The o.p. is in that vein. It basically says stop attacking Rmoney, or we'll pull out our false equivalencies on you. Frank Luntz must be in awe.

[DevonRex]

84. ITA.

That was BBI's pattern too. He just got lazy at the end and didn't bother covering his intentions. I figure that's the tipping point. It's the only thing I can think of anyway.

[Romulox]

82. "The horrible thing about the Two Minutes Hate was not that one was obliged to act a part..."

"The horrible thing about the Two Minutes Hate was not that one was obliged to act a part, but that it was impossible to avoid joining in. "

[emulatorloo]

180. Sounds like projection

If Brentspeak is going to post his daily "Two Minutes Of I Hate Democrats and Obama," he's gonna get pushback.

[RedStateLiberal]

22. I don't think it's disingenuous if he's trying to do something about the problem.

The Bring Jobs Home Act
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/s3364

The bill will cut taxes for U.S. companies that move jobs and business operations to the United States and end tax loopholes that reward companies that ship jobs overseas. As Rockefeller noted, Republican candidate Mitt Romney—who has a long history of shipping American jobs overseas while running Bain Capital—backs tax breaks for outsourcers.

http://www.aflcio.org/Blog/Political-Action-Legislation/Get-Smart-Pass-the-Bring-Jobs-Home-Act

[One of the 99]

73. Well said! nt

[AnotherMcIntosh]

90. Wasn't that promised in 2008? How's the progress on that?

[RedStateLiberal]

96. I agree it's probably not going anywhere.

But that's not Obama's fault when Repubs are opposing every common sense piece of legislation that Dems propose. Even some blue-dogs won't get behind his policies which makes it impossible even with a supermajority in Congress. Some people like to pretend that the Pres has a magic wand to change the tax code and everything else by himself. That's not how our system works. It's fair to criticize him for not fulfilling every single promise but it's not realistic, especially with our hyper-partisan politics.

The bottom line is that Obama supports these kind of reforms and Rmoney does not. You choose which you'll have a better chance with to get something like this done.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

98. Then going back to your origional statement in which you said that you don't think it's disingenuous

if he's trying to do something about the problem, you should be willing to recognize that he's not trying to do something about the problem.

He's not. You can make excuses, such as the "Repubs are opposing every ... piece of legislation that Dems propose," but that's neither true nor does it establish that he is doing anything about the problem.

You really think that the Republicans are opposing everything? That's not true. They didn't oppose the job-transferring "free-trade" agreements signed by Obama:
2011 - Panama - United States Trade Promotion Agreement
2011 - Colombia - United States Trade Promotion Agreement
2011 - Republic of Korea (South Korea) - United States Free Trade Agreement

In addition, the Republicans, including Rmoney and the Chamber of Commerce, support the latest pending job-transferring "free-trade" agreement. It's being called NAFTA on steroids.

Trans-Pacific negotiations have been taking place throughout the Obama presidency. The deal is strongly supported by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the top lobbying group for American corporations. Obama's Republican opponent in the 2012 presidential elections, Mitt Romney, has urged the U.S. to finalize the deal as soon as possible.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/13/obama-trade-document-leak_n_1592593.html

Incidently, your "magic wand" metaphor excuse is old and went out of fashion with the last Harry Potter movie. You need some new language. Maybe you can borrow from and update one of these:

[RedStateLiberal]

104. Your logic fails me.

How is proposing legislation to help with the problem and introducing it in Congress and trying to get support for this legislation by talking about it in his speeches all the time NOT trying to do something about the problem? Call me an apologist or whatever... I really don't care about opinions from those who can't respect my opinions at all, and especially when they use rhetoric such as "your excuse is old and went out of fashion..you need some new language.." Funny how you can't explain how my "excuse" is bad - all you can do is attack it with empty rhetoric and change the subject. You really need to learn how to have a civil debate. Until then, don't bother me.

[woo me with science]

100. It's promised every election season,

just like closing GITMO, holding corrupt bankers accountable, ending tax cuts for billionaires, etc., etc., etc.

It's an old, familiar song.

Obama signs South Korea, Panama, Colombia trade pacts
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x5033689

Obama and Romney Both Backing Secret Job-killing Deal? Trans-Pacific Partnership lurks
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002946322

Sec. of State Hillary Clinton and outsourcing
http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/ndtv-exclusive-hillary-clinton-on-fdi-mamata-outsourcing-and-hafiz-saeed-full-transcript-207593

Mother Jones Magazine: Obama and Romney Both Love Free Trade
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/07/obama-and-romney-both-love-free-trade


The denial needs to stop.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=146626

[BumRushDaShow]

23. Right on time!

I know a bunch of folks have been vigorously hand-wringing with the best of RW lunatics like Snotnunu.

[Edweird]

32. 3rd way/new 'dem' garbage is about RW policy. This and the individual mandate are prime examples.

[woo me with science]

41. Yup. The Third Way was never a grass roots phenomenon.

It was from the start a top-down infiltration planned and bankrolled by corporations.

It is no accident that Third Way types reliably defend job-killing free trade agreements, indefinite detention, warrantless surveillance, attacks on Occupy, bank bailouts and settlements, austerity budgets, drone wars, etc., etc., etc.

It is a wholly corporate-Republican-neocon agenda, minus the religious trimmings.

It is also thoroughly corporate in its use of disingenuous advertising techniques. You always see bright, shiny packaging and progressive messages....but you can only claim to support one set of values while vociferously backing policies that are diametrically opposed to them for so long...

That is why Third Way propagandists are *always* reduced to techniques of personal attack and diversion from actual policies. Anything to avoid shining a light on the vicious gap between their policies and what they claim to stand for...

[AnotherMcIntosh]

91. Well said.

[dionysus]

36. BBI called. he wants his shtick back.

[DevonRex]

39. *snort*

Oh no you didn't.

[Bobbie Jo]

44. !!

[FSogol]

47. LOL

[Tarheel_Dem]

50. !!!

[Coexist]

66. rofl

[BumRushDaShow]

71. Bwah!

[MannyGoldstein]

167. Thanks for this reminder!

We who hold traditional Democratic values need to keep in mind that our views can get us banned from New Democratic sites.

BTW: <----- Third Way "I surrender" glyph

[stevenleser]

38. Post right wing sources to attack President Obama and this is what I see/hear

&feature=related

[GarroHorus]

45. I stopped reading at "Conor Friedersdorf"

Citing right wing sources to attack Obama makes you in league wiht the right wing, IMO.

Welcome to ignore.

[JoePhilly]

48. Romney must really be having a bad week!!!

Next we'll be hearing from a RW shill about Obama is the one trying to kill Social Security and Medicare.

[Iggo]

51. "Obama's really on our side, you dumb old lefties!"

[progressivebydesign]

58. Unless Kucinich or Nader is running... am I to assume the purists are voting for Romney???

Is this what you're trying to infer? Hard to tell...

When we get close to elections, and the purists start in on whomever the candidate is.. I wish I could suck it up and be a Republican. At least they know how to support the candidate. Their time to do this stuff was during the primaries, when their purist candidates could have been chosen to run against the republican, but they never are. And that's because they're supported by a tiny fraction of Democrats. So why in the world would the majority of Democrats participate in tearing down the candidate that represents the majority of us, or worse, helping to get someone like Romney or Bush elected?

For those purists who think that President Obama isn't liberal enough, or is too corporate, or whatever, you were outvoted in the primaries, your guys didn't win. He did, and he obviously represents the majority of Democrats. Your other choice is Romney, who represents no Democrats, and has pledged to destroy Planned Parenthood first thing.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

92. Diebold

Is this the reason why neither the DOJ nor any other Federal agency will investigate voter fraud and Diebold manipulation in a serious way?

[progressivebydesign]

53. Oh boy. Do we have to do this EVERY election???

Every time we get close to the election since I've been here, which was right when Gore had the election stolen. Some "helpful" DUer decides that their personal interest is much more important than getting the Democrat elected. Mind you, they don't do these in between election cycles, they need to do this now.... they find right wing sources to push their agenda, because their magical thinking is that perhaps Ralph Nader will appear as a third party candidate or something.

Honestly, exactly what IS the purpose of posting a right wing editorial attacking the President who has come out clearly against outsourcing in his policies, and has added jobs to the economy every month? What's the point?? What are you hoping to gain by posting this?

You think outsourcing is bad? then keep sprinkling your "obama is outsourcer in chief' magic dust all over DU, then we can have Romney who is the Grand Wizard of Outsourcing in the White House. He will make Bush's job losses look like kids absent from school during flu season.

One of the reasons that we Democrats have it tough, is because the repubs have mastered the art of circling the wagons and opening a can of STFU, unless it helps us elect our nominee. Frankly the fact that the repubs are infighting now, bodes badly for them, because by now they're usually holding hands and singing Kumbaya while attacking ONLY the Democrats.

[DevonRex]

56. Happens every time the Dems have a good week. Clockwork

it is.

[dionysus]

59. brent's been campaigning against obama for about 4 years now.

[Enrique]

79. this article will have zero impact on the election

I'm glad it was posted, though I disagree with his free trade views, just like I disagree with Obama's free trade views.

[ProSense]

81. So

"this article will have zero impact on the election"

...that's the standard for not promoting RW bullshit in a positive light?

[Enrique]

85. it's not bullshit

it's 100% natural that a free-trader like Friersdorf would feel betrayed by Obama's attack on outsourcing.

Actually there is part of his article that I don't buy, when he starts speaking for other people, talking about how it's going to radicalize blue-collar people. I think most people are more realistic about politicians than that.

[ProSense]

87. Ah

"it's 100% natural that a free-trader like Friersdorf would feel betrayed by Obama's attack on outsourcing.

Actually there is part of his article that I don't buy, when he starts speaking for other people, talking about how it's going to radicalize blue-collar people. I think most people are more realistic about politicians than that."

...so you like the article because you know it's bullshit, but "it's not bullshit"?

No matter the justification, this is still a RW shill attacking Obama in defense of Romney.

[emilyg]

60. k/r

[ProSense]

62. Are you going to vote for Obama

this time?

Yes or no?

I am.

[emilyg]

74. I always vote.

[ProSense]

75. That's not what I asked, but OK. n/t

[AtomicKitten]

83. if past is prologue, I'd say no

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=479225

[antigop]

113. oh, great find! Especially because of DLC Hillary's position on outsourcing

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=969587

[AtomicKitten]

115. The hypocrisy does boggle the mind.

“And some that smile have in their hearts, I fear, millions of mischiefs.”
― William Shakespeare, Julius Caesar

[Tarheel_Dem]

168. Explains a great deal!

[girl gone mad]

106. What is this, the DU Committee on Un-American Activities?

Is harassment and intimidation really the best strategy for achieving your goals?

[ProSense]

107. It was

What is this, the DU Committee on Un-American Activities?

Is harassment and intimidation really the best strategy for achieving your goals?

... a question. The person responded, but here you are with a ludicrous statement.

[Skip Intro]

210. Looks that way, doesn't it?

[Skip Intro]

209. Had you asked that of me, I'd have said

none of your damn business, take your loyalty pledge and bs hall-monitor mentality and...

But you didn't.

So I won't.

[kestrel91316]

63. Why are you attacking THE Democratic candidate during a presidential campaign??

Nevermind. I recognize your name.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

67. This isn't going to be popular here -

but I, for one, appreciate reading the good, the bad, and the ugly about a candidate. I'm not afraid of the Truth.

[antigop]

114. +1000. n/t

[Ikonoklast]

69. Gee, I wonder what Kark Rove and Dick Cheney have to say on this subject!

Far Right sources used by the resident ODS sufferers to attack Democrats and this president, who claim to be Lefter than Left?

You Better Believe It!


Riiiiiight.


Self-styled 'progressives' that want to burn the entire village down in order to 'save' it.

Vichy 'Progressives'.

[Lionessa]

76. K n R. Apparently our side is as susceptible to candidates' pandering as theirs.

Like the mmj users he's not going to hassle, or the LGBT civil rights that he's leaving to the states, or the "change" that looks like the same ol' folks in his economic and bank reg positions,just to name a few of the many, but it seems some Dems hear or read their candidates and lose all ability to think critically about what is presented, or remember how much it turned out to be pandering last election cycle.

[ProSense]

78. How to

...bat down RW attempts to take the heat off Romney for outsourcing
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002969344

[Romulox]

80. How DARE you post this? Now let me tell you about my brand new KIA SOUL!

Also, where are the jobs?

[Edweird]

102. It was the dancing woodchucks that got him.

[cherokeeprogressive]

193. Shouldn't that be KIA Seoul?

And that's where the jobs are... where your car was made.

Some of the jobs anyway...

[dionysus]

206. your obsession with mineralman is bizarre....

[Union Scribe]

214. lol

[Zalatix]

88. So what's the solution? Stay home, don't vote? Vote for Robbedme?

Well? I'm waiting, Conor Friedersdorf. What should we do?

[msanthrope]

89. A week of Bain really hit home, didn't it? nt

[SidDithers]

122. Better believe it!...

Sid

[MannyGoldstein]

172. Is that a threat?

Do I recall correctly that you're a moderator of some sort?

[SidDithers]

183. ...

Sid

[AnotherMcIntosh]

94. For some, as you can readily see, speaking the truth is overrated. But I thank you.

[ProSense]

97. For some,

"For some, as you can readily see, speaking the truth is overrated..."

...being self-righteous while promoting a RW hacks disingenuous attacks on the President is a virtue.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

99. If there is to be a choice between the truth and disingenuous ad hominem attacks on truth tellers,

I'll chose those who tell the truth over those who make ad hominem attacks under any banner.

[ProSense]

103. And

"If there is to be a choice between the truth and disingenuous ad hominem attacks on truth tellers,"

...if anti-Obama hacks are "truth tellers," pigs must be flying out of Limbaugh's ass.

[Petrushka]

108. Thanks for the link.

[SidDithers]

112. Nailed it...nt

Sid

[sabrina 1]

117. Why is a Registered Republican in a Democratic President's cabinet?

Or are you disputing the fact that Immelt was appointed to this president's cabinet?

Calling a DUer a 'troll' for posting facts raises the question of exactly what a 'troll' is.

Are you for Republicans being appointed to Democratic Administrations? You haven't addressed the issue at all but have attacked the messenger.

We are working to rid this government of Republicans. How about you?

[ProSense]

118. Well,

"Or are you disputing the fact that Immelt was appointed to this president's cabinet?"

...it should be disputed because it's inaccurate.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/cabinet

[SidDithers]

119. Don't let little things like facts get in the way of a good outrage...nt

Sid

[sabrina 1]

130. If I were you, I would take that advice myself.

See my post #129. Question, do you just react to things without checking for facts? That is never a good idea as it makes you look, well, uninformed.

The FACTS are that this president appointed more Republicans to his cabinet than any other Dem President. And he was, not sure about now, proud of that fact and said so.

I'm glad you are here as facts are very important in politics and clearly you did not have the facts at all on this issue.

So, now that I have provided them for you, perhaps you can answer the question "why would a Democratic Administration appoint Republicans to their cabinet"? You know? It's a question we Dems have been asking for a long time.



Don't thank me, I'm always happy to provide facts. It makes DU look good.

[SidDithers]

159. Don't the goalposts get heavy...

when you have to move them around like that?

Sid

[sabrina 1]

175. I wouldn't know, but if you say so I will accept your experienced opinion.

But, back to the issue you still refuse to address. Why did this Democratic Administration appoint so many Republicans to powerful positions, one of the worst of them being Immelt, when we threw Republicans out?

[Tarheel_Dem]

120. THANK! YOU!!!

[dionysus]

124. HEY!1! stop yelling! shouting hurts my ears.. why thems..

fightin' woids!

PUT UP YER DUKES!!!

[Tarheel_Dem]

125. You big bully. You're in the "president's cabinet", aren't you?

[Bobbie Jo]

121. but if I make a declarative statement

and post it with self-righteous authority, it must be true.

Facts come in handy around here.

[Tarheel_Dem]

126. That's why they hate and disparage the "blue links"!

[sabrina 1]

134. Um, no. I like the 'blue links'. So I'll ask again, why did this administration appoint Republicans

to the president's cabinet? Or are you saying this did not happen?

[treestar]

195. How dare someone attempt to shore up their post with links!1!1

That's just not fair!

[Tarheel_Dem]

198. Especially when those "blue links" open up a can of you know what!

[sabrina 1]

136. Yes, facts do come in handy especially when there are those who try to deflect from

facts. So, let me ask YOU, since you appear to be in possession of the facts. 'Why did this administration appoint more Republicans to this president's cabinet than any other Democratic president has in the past'?

Or were not aware of that fact? See my fact-filled post below, which I'm sure you will appreciate as a person who is interested in facts.

The president actually answered this question himself. I have a feeling he was in possession of the facts when he did so!



Amazing!

[Bobbie Jo]

139. Awkward backpedaling

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=970411

You were wwwwrong. So you change your statement to fit your "facts?"

Stop digging.

[sabrina 1]

149. "Immelt joins Obama's kitchen-CEO cabinet"

Immelt joins Obama's kitchen-CEO cabinet

FORTUNE -- Jeff Immelt is pushing the boundaries of his role as CEO of G.E. into one of a global figurehead.

He recently gained a powerful position, replacing Paul Volcker as leader of an economic advisory council. The council, formerly called the President's Economic Recovery Advisory Board, will be renamed the President's Council on Jobs and Competitiveness.

Very, very awkward attempt on your part to try NOT to answer the question, so I'll ask it again. Why would a Democratic Administration appoint so many Republicans to positions of power AFTER Democrats voted them out?

I know it's a difficult question for you to answer and I do not expect YOU to even attempt an answer, but the President himself did answer it, so maybe you agree with him? Or maybe by now he has finally learned the lesson we all knew and could have told him so?

I do not vote for Republicans, in the cabinet, in kitchen cabinets, for Ambassodorships to China, or for any other powerful postions.

How about you?

[sabrina 1]

129. "Obama Names Three Republican Cabinet Officers"

In fact the President is proud and said so, (see below) of his policy of bi-partisanship reflected by the number of Republicans he appointed both to his cabinet and to other powerful positions in his administration:

Obama Names Three Republican Cabinet Officers

They are Robert Gates (staying on board) as Defense Secretary, Ray LaHood (former Illinois congressman) as Transportation, and Judd Gregg (New Hampshire governor) as Commerce Secretary.

.....

Obama said during his Monday press conference: "You know, when I made a series of overtures to the Republicans --- going over to meet with both Republican caucuses; you know, putting three Republicans in my Cabinet, something that is unprecedented; making sure that they were invited here to the White House to talk about the economic recovery plan --- all those were not designed simply to get some short-term votes. They were designed to try to build up some trust over time. And I think that as I continue to make these overtures, over time hopefully that will be reciprocated."

And as promised, he has continued to 'make these overtures'. Immelt was appointed to the new Council on Jobs and Competitiveness, which replaced the disbanded Paul Volcker Economic Recovery Advisory Board..

I haven't seen the reciprocation he hoped for, not in four years. Let's hope he's learned as we all have a long time ago, that Republicans do not belong in power in this country and that they do not 'reciprocate' unless it's to attack Democrats. Disappointing that he did not know this already.

You have not answered my question. Why were Republicans, totally rejected by the electorate, brought back into power by this administration? Are there no Democrats with whom this president could have discussed the economic recovery plan? I mean considering that Republicans created the economic disaster in the first place, exactly what made him think they might have any idea of how to fix it?

And I have not even mentioned the Republicans he appointed to the Deficit Commission.

We don't vote for Democrats so that we get Republicans in positions of power, do we?

So, I repeat my question, why are Republicans being appointed to positions of power in a Democratic Administration?

[ProSense]

132. Are you serious?

"Obama Names Three Republican Cabinet Officers"

So your response to the fact that you were wrong about Immelt being in the cabinet is to post an old release citing Gates (no longer in the cabinet), LaHood and Gregg (never became a member of the cabinet).

Beyond that, what the hell does that release have to do with Immelt not being in the cabinet and outsourcing?

[sabrina 1]

138. My question was 'why did this administration appoint Republicans to his cabinet'

Seems a whole lot of people here were unaware or in denial that he had done so.

Immelt was appointed to a powerful position, maybe not a top cabinet position, however, he's a Republican and does not belong in a Democratic administration. Unless there are no Democrats who could have filled that position.

Can you explain why there was no Democrat available for all of these positions?

I know you are trying to avoid the main question, but since the President himself has not avoided it, I don't understand why.

Nice try though.

So again, do we elect Democrats so they can drag Republicans out of the gutter we threw them into, back into positions of power?

[ProSense]

140. Well.

" My question was 'why did this administration appoint Republicans to his cabinet'"


...I guess you need a reminder:

"Or are you disputing the fact that Immelt was appointed to this president's cabinet?"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=970411

Remember that question?

[sabrina 1]

143. "Immelt joins Obama's kitchen-CEO cabinet"

No, I did not need a reminder at all. If anything, the appointment of Immelt was even more disturbing or at least equally so, than all the others, considering what a powerful position it is and who he replaced!

Immelt joins Obama's kitchen-CEO cabinet

FORTUNE -- Jeff Immelt is pushing the boundaries of his role as CEO of G.E. into one of a global figurehead.

He recently gained a powerful position, replacing Paul Volcker as leader of an economic advisory council. The council, formerly called the President's Economic Recovery Advisory Board, will be renamed the President's Council on Jobs and Competitiveness.

The new name is supposed to represent a shift in government focus. It's more forward looking-emphasizing creating new jobs rather than patching up old problems.

The leadership also signals a change in federal mentality, seeing as Immelt's résumé looks a lot different that Volcker's. Volcker has a long history of holding high-power economic advisory roles. Among them, he chaired the Board of Governors for the Federal Reserve System under Presidents Carter and Reagan, and is credited with helping to bring down unsustainable inflation rates during his time at that position.

Now, can we get back to the question on the minds of many Democrats who do not vote for Republicans. Why were all these Republicans given such powerful positions in a Democratic Administration? This is NOT what the American people voted for. They voted to get rid of them and their bad policies.

Do you support the appointment of Republicans by a Democratic President? Are there no Democrats for these positions?

[ProSense]

150. Excuse me

"Immelt joins Obama's kitchen-CEO cabinet"?

I can see why you confused that with the President's cabinet.

[sabrina 1]

154. Can't bring yourself to answer the question.

But you have answered it. You ARE okay with Republicans in important positions, appointed by Democrats AFTER we vote for them and kick Republicans out of office.

Okay, with that established, let me ask you this, why do you support Democrats then? What is the point of throwing Republicans out of office if you are okay with bringing them back after we win?

Three Republican Cabinet members, ambassador to China, the Deficit Commission etc etc.

Sorry, I do not agree with you. Republicans are a disaster for this country and no way would I ever support them, as you are doing, for any position of power in our government.

Thanks for the answers though!

[ProSense]

165. "kitchen-CEO cabinet"

[Dragonfli]

216. You really can't answer, can you. Why is that, denial or evasiveness?

You can't answer this one either can you.

[kurtzapril4]

160. Sabrina, give up.

you'll never convince them that their hero is not so much a hero as a typical politician who will say anything to get himself elected. Don't believe your lying eyes and ears!

OBama will get my vote, but I'll be wearing nose plugs.

[ProSense]

164. Yeah,

"you'll never convince them that their hero is not so much a hero as a typical politician who will say anything to get himself elected. Don't believe your lying eyes and ears!"

...unless you jump on the bandwagon of a RW anti-Obama hack shilling for Romney, it proves that you're unwilling to see that Obama is not a "hero."

I mean, where does this bullshit logic come from?

[Dragonfli]

217. Are you reading impaired?

"...unless you jump on the bandwagon of a RW anti-Obama hack shilling for Romney, it proves that you're unwilling to see that Obama is not a "hero."

I mean, where does this bullshit logic come from?"

You are evading most vigorously Sabrina's question, and more importantly her point, that he likes to appoint, and is proud of all those Republicans that are pushing Republican policy from within his camp. The logic is self evident, read her posts again and answer her, then the logic will be as clear as the truth of his very own inclinations that are quite public and can be seen by all of us.

[sabrina 1]

228. True, but I am astounded by what has been revealed in this thread. From the same people

who constantly accuse others of 'supporting Republicans' in the end it appears, since none have denied it, it is they themselves who all along supported Republicans being handed positions of power in our government. For me, the goal is always to remove power from Republicans as it is for Democrats in general.

This explains the sense many people have had all along that when people make those false accusations, they are in fact 'projecting'.

[woo me with science]

133. Wow, that's a remarkably unwarranted celebration you are having there with your friends.

given the fact that Obama personally selected Immelt for head of his Council on Jobs...

...AND given the administration's very clear record on free trade and outsourcing.

Obama signs South Korea, Panama, Colombia trade pacts
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x5033689

Obama and Romney Both Backing Secret Job-killing Deal? Trans-Pacific Partnership lurks
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002946322

Sec. of State Hillary Clinton and outsourcing
http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/ndtv-exclusive-hillary-clinton-on-fdi-mamata-outsourcing-and-hafiz-saeed-full-transcript-207593

Mother Jones Magazine: Obama and Romney Both Love Free Trade
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/07/obama-and-romney-both-love-free-trade


The denial needs to stop.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=146626



The OP's point is confirmed by the record. Your only accomplishment here was to provide a marvelous example of Third Way desperation to divert from the record with nastiness and irrelevancies.

[ProSense]

135. Occupy!

Party!

WTF is up with the "blue links"?

[dionysus]

144. Prosense, didn't you know that squatting in parks and disavowing politics is the wave of the future?

don't make fun of these brave heros.

[sabrina 1]

152. So, back to the topic you are trying so hard NOT to address.

I know I would never vote for a Republican in any position of power, in the Cabinet or anywhere else because their policies are so destructive to this country. Yet, the Democrats the people elected appointed far too many Republicans to powerful positions despite the clear message from the people.

So how about you? Are you okay with Republicans in positions of power AFTER we kick them out?

Here, I'll save you some time. From the far right talking points of O'Reilly, Hannity, Fox, et al:

OWS is nothing but a useless, filthy, threat to public safety, squatting in parks, instead of getting jobs, expecting hand-outs and have accomplished nothing etc. etc. blah, blah!

There, I have more I can help you with, but that ought to do for now.

So, back to the question, are you supportive of Republicans in positions of power, appointed by Dems AFTER we kick them out?

[treestar]

196. If they are really no different, then what difference does it make?

The POTUS appoints these people to do a job - maybe he picks the one he thinks will do the job best. Certainly those picks defend him from the "crony" lies of Mittens.

[sabrina 1]

199. You said that, not I. I am a Democrat because I despise Republicans and do not want them in

power in any capacity. You are saying that Republicans have good ideas and can be in positions of power and do an effective job.

Excuse me, but I could not disagree more, if I did, why would I be a Democrat? Why are YOU a Democrat if you see no difference between them? You actually believe that someone like Gates, universally despised by the Left and for very good reasons throughout the Bush years, has done anything but harm to this country? Do you know anything about this man?

As for the GE CEO, please tell me how this Republican was a better choice than say, Dean Baker or Galbraith or any number of other Democrats?

I can't believe what I am reading here on DU. A Democratic site, now telling me it is okay to put Republicans in power! Unbelievable.

[treestar]

200. Individual Republicans may be capable of doing a job, like Huntsman or Gates

I was speaking to the people to claim they are both alike. If you're not claiming that, fine.

Still we don't tend as Democrats to completely leave the Republicans out and try to exclude them as they do to us. At least, not the relatively few of them who are still sane.

[sabrina 1]

202. I, as a Democrat, more than 'tend to leave Republicans out and to exclude them as they do to us'.

The only 'relatively sane' Republican left in the insane Republican Party today is Huntsman. And he only looks sane compared to what has become of that party.

Gates is a liar, a betrayer of a former Democratic president and should have been dismissed as soon as it was possible to do so. Do you know his history at all? I cannot believe how willing people are to excuse the inexcusable. The only consolation is that it is just a very few and they are beginning to look very questionable in terms of their motives to a lot of people.

We are DEMOCRATS. We do not fight to win so that Republicans can be dragged from the jaws of defeat back into positions of power. And please stop trying to make excuses for this, no one who is a true Democrat is buying it frankly. And it is a huge issue that badly needs to be addressed since we did not address it before the last election.

I support Democrats, period! I do not support Republicans, period. Funny how the 'purists' here who accuse everyone who dares to question, as it is their duty to do especially as Democrats, are the ones we are now finding out, are supportive of Republicans in power???

[treestar]

219. What has Gates lied about?

I'm sure you've done your amount of daring to question Democrats, and now, here you are the best one ever.

Why did Obama appoint Gates? Are you going to consider that at all? Or is Obama part of the conspiracy to promote Republican values? A disappointment for appointing Gates? I'm sure his view is not to be considered, either. Maybe he had a reason to appoint Gates in spite of Gates being a Republican. He may not agree that Gates "lied." If you're going to accuse Gates of these things, you must admit they have not made the media yet and many of us don't know. So please enlighten us about Gates, Obama and their conspiracy to put the Republicans in power by pretending.

[sabrina 1]

223. Why do you always resort to personal attacks treestar?

I've noticed throughout all my interactions online that those who resort to personal attacks do so because they cannot defend their positions.

Gates himself acknowledged his lies about Iran/Contra at his confirmation hearing. However, he claimed to have 'forgotten' that he had been informed about such an important issue as the diversion of funds in that scandal, AFTER he could no longer pretend to have been 'out of the loop'. He lied by omission and denial and when caught, made up a story which few intelligent people ever believed.

To put it mildly, Gates was an Iran/Contra crook who weaseled his way of prosecution with the help of George Bush. He betrayed a Democratic President and helped steer this country, by secretly supporting Reagan while still working for Carter, into a downward spiral by helping to get Reagan elected.

I am amazed that you never took the trouble to look into Gates' background. First time I've met a Democrat who had to ask 'what did he lie about'.

If you're going to accuse Gates of these things, you must admit they have not made the media yet and many of us don't know

Are you serious? If they had not made the media, I would not know about them. Why, eg, was he forced to withdraw his nomination by the Senate not once, but twice? In 1987 and 1991? Didn't make the media? What a strange thing so see. Gates has made the historical record of this country's not-so-proud era of deception and lies regarding Iran/Contra.

An Iran/Contra crook who, like the rest of them, managed to squirm off the hook. A scandal that is still a huge stain on this country's history as the country failed to hold those crooks accountable for their actions.

[treestar]

231. What personal attack

I have no time or reason to look into Gates' background.

If you want to pretend you are so superior for having researched Gates, I can only assure you that you won't persuade anyone with the idea that you've spent some time on that and therefore the rest of us must swallow your conclusions hook, line and sinker.

It is only your conclusion that Gates "lied about Iran Contra" and given your attitude towards others and what they should believe, that's not enough. Gates will remain innocent until proven guilty.

[ProSense]

153. In everything

there is the good, the bad and the ugly.

I support the good:

Why SEIU Is Thankful For Occupy Wall Street
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/11/24/1039632/--Why-SEIU-Is-Thankful-For-Occupy-Wall-Street

After Six Months, A Look At What Occupy Wall Street Has Accomplished
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002449584

[ProSense]

137. If you're interested,

here's a "blue link" to add to your collection:

How to bat down RW attempts to take the heat off Romney for outsourcing
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002969344

[emulatorloo]

146. Game - set - match

[sabrina 1]

162. So you too agree with Dems appointing Republicans to positions of power after we throw them out?

I've learned a lot in this thread. And it explains why Democrats even after they win, cannot get their agenda passed. Thanks for the enlightening comments.

For the record, I could not disagree with you more. I despise Republicans, all of them, and would never for any reason, support them in any position of power.

That is why I am a Democrat. I guess I always thought that all Democrats would agree with that. But you learn something new every day, some of it not so good.

[emulatorloo]

166. Sabrina - lets have a nice discussion without "litmus tests" as to who is a "better" Democrat.

"So you too agree with Dems appointing Republicans to positions of power after we throw them out?"

If the Republican is sane and knowledgeable, I have no problem with it. It is true that 99.9 percent of Republicans are insane. But some aren't.

Bill Cohen under Clinton I had no problem with. He was a moderate, and he did what Clinton Asked.

Gates has followed Obama's orders re leaving Iraq and drawing down in Afghanistan.

From every report I have heard, Huntsman was an excellent Ambassador to China.

These men did their jobs and served the President.

[sabrina 1]

179. We disagree. Gates is a war monger and a liar. No Democrat should appoint someone

who betrayed a former Democratic President to such a position of power. I expected to see the end of him when we kicked Republicans out of office and I was certain that almost every Democrat felt the same way. If I had the time, I would go searching for the comments on Gates from Democrats when he was Bush's warmonger.

Immelt is NOT a 'sane Republican' on issues of economics. We have plenty of Democrats though who are.

Huntsman I will agree, he does appear to be one of the very, very rare sane Republicans.

I want to know why when we win, we cannot appoint Democrats to these very important positions, as we all expected when we worked so hard to elect Democrats.

[emulatorloo]

189. It is ok to disagree. As to your original question, long tradition of appointees from another party

Do agree that Immelt looks like an asshole. We can talk about specific people and work through that. But I mostly wanted to note that your question isn't nor ever has been a litmus test for who is a good Democrat.

Was digging around looking for more examples through history of "mixed cabinets."

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/feb/10/barack-obama/Three-Republicans-Cabinet-Most/

===================

For a little perspective, here's a rundown of the crossovers from a century's worth of presidential Cabinets:

• George W. Bush: Democrat Norman Mineta, transportation secretary.

• Bill Clinton: Republican William Cohen, defense secretary.

• George H. W. Bush: nada.

• Ronald Reagan: William Bennett was a Democrat when appointed as education secretary in 1985, but the following year, he became a Republican and has remained a conservative Republican voice ever since.

• Jimmy Carter: Republican James Schlesinger, who served as defense secretary under Republican presidents Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford, was tapped by Carter as America's first energy secretary.

• Richard Nixon: Daniel Patrick Moynihan served as ambassador to the United Nations, which at the time was not a Cabinet-level position.

• John F. Kennedy: Republicans C. Douglas Dillon as treasury secretary and Robert McNamara as defense secretary. McNamara wasn't such a stretch though, as Time m agazine pointed out at the time, "In politics, McNamara is a lukewarm, liberal Republican who often contributes to Democratic candidates. This year he voted for Kennedy."

• Dwight D. Eisenhower: Democrat and Labor Secretary Martin Patrick Durkin, the "plumber" among Eisenhower's so called "Nine Millionaires and a Plumber" Cabinet. Durkin was replaced in 1953 by fellow Democrat James P. Mitchell, a so-called "Democrat-for-Eisenhower."

• Franklin D. Roosevelt: Republicans Frank Knox as secretary of the Navy and Henry Stimson, secretary of war.

=========

[sabrina 1]

204. Yes, I am aware, and even support, cooperation between the two parties. But we are talking about

today's Republican Party. Can anyone deny that the current Republican Party is led by the likes of Grover Norquist, that every single Republican in Congress signed Norquist's pledge to refuse to raise taxes on no matter how detrimental that might be to the country?

They started a war. They never intended to be cooperative. Imo, keeping Gates eg, fed into the Right Wing false claim that Democrats are weak on security, so they needed to turn to a Republican 'warrior' in order to 'protect this country'. Is this the message we want to convey?

Gates, eg, betrayed President Carter and enabled Reagan in his treasonous dealings with Iran and helped put Reagan in power, a pivotal point in the decline of this country as I would think, most Democrats agree on.

Level of involvement in the Iran-Contra scandal

Because of his senior status in the CIA, Gates was close to many figures who played significant roles in the Iran-Contra Affair and was in a position to have known of their activities. In 1984, as deputy director of CIA, Gates advocated that the U.S. initiate a bombing campaign against Nicaragua and that the U.S. do everything in its power short of direct military invasion of the country to remove the Sandinista government.[24] The evidence developed by Independent Counsel did not warrant indictment of Gates for his Iran-Contra activities or his responses to official inquiries.

Gates was an early subject of Independent Counsel's investigation, but the investigation of Gates intensified in the spring of 1991 as part of a larger inquiry into the Iran/contra activities of CIA officials. This investigation received an additional impetus in May 1991, when President George H.W. Bush nominated Gates to be Director of Central Intelligence (DCI). The chairman and vice chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI) requested, in a letter to the Independent Counsel on May 15, 1991, any information that would "significantly bear on the fitness" of Gates for the CIA post.

And more on Gates:

Gates’ role in Iran-Contra scandal still debated

Converging scandals

Iran-Contra was the convergence of two covert operations run by the Reagan White House — selling arms to Iran in an effort to free U.S. hostages in Lebanon and supplying arms to the Contra guerrillas fighting the leftist government of Nicaragua.

NSC aide Oliver North oversaw the Contra resupply network during a congressional ban on military aid to the rebels.

Congress was kept in the dark. The two operations were exposed when a resupply plane was shot down over Nicaragua and when a Middle East newspaper disclosed the Iran initiative.

In 1991, as Gates prepared to testify at his confirmation hearings for the CIA, new evidence emerged that raised additional questions about whether he had told the truth in Iran-Contra.

The fact that this unelected official has managed to remain in a powerful position through several different administrations, despite the questions about his role in Iran Contra is disturbing to say the least and should have completely disqualified him from a Democratic Administration.

Maybe I am way too cynical when it comes to Republicans, but because of the current political climate, the absolute refusal of that Party as a whole, to ever put the country before politics, I don't think it is advisable to do what was possible in the past. I cannot think of a prominent Republican that I would trust in any position of power and/or who cares more about this country than the idealogy that has taken over that party.

But I do thank you for your willingness to discuss the issue in a civil manner

[Tarheel_Dem]

173. More killer "blue links".

[dionysus]

148. what's "desperate" is, the "dems" who are so upset that obama's going to have another 4 years, they

need to use RW sources to flail their little fists around in the neverending campaign to try and convince DUers that the two parties are the same.

by now it's just entertainment to me.

bless your little hearts for trying so hard.

[emulatorloo]

151. Basically, the ideologues are scrambling for a new narrative.

Anybody with a lick of sense understands that the "Dems = Republicans" line is total bullshit.

Most people look at the Red State and draw their own conclusions. Anti-gay, anti-woman, pro-corporation, etc etc

Anybody with a lick of sense looking at Obama and Romney also know they are far from being "the same". Bain vs Community Organizer, etc etc.

So yes, they are desperate. It is not going according to their plan.

[DevonRex]

158. Same little flailing fists every time, too.

Well, they don't know any better i guess. Bless 'em.

[woo me with science]

157. Lots of responses.

Lots of attempts at personal swipes, insults, circle-guffawing, and diversion.

Not a single acknowledgement of the very clear record on trade and outsourcing.

This entire thread has been....I initially wrote "illuminating," but actually it is a very tired rehash of what we all have seen a hundred times before.

Denial doesn't work anymore. A million American schoolchildren are now homeless, and we keep excusing the corporate assaults. It has never been more important to face reality and our responsibility to demand better.

[emulatorloo]

169. Nice try. We "get" it.

You've long ago lost credibility with me for your refusal to hold Republicans accountable and your pushing of the false meme that Occupy is a 100% anti-Democrat and anti-Obama movement.

Today you have vehemently aligned yourself with an anti-Occupy right winger. And yet you claim to be pro-Occupy.

Those two things do not compute. It doesn't make any fucking sense.

But it may fit in with why all of your posts excuse Republicans in order to paint Democrats in the worst possible way.

[emulatorloo]

147. So what's the endgame, buddy?

What are you trying to accomplish with this constant barrage of anti-Obama bullshit from right-wingers?

What happens once you help Romney get elected? I would love for you to explain what happens next/

[Douglas Carpenter]

161. he does have a point. Democrats have supported outsourcing and predatory capitalism. However, if I

were to find a progressive silver lining to all of this - it is that this whole campaign is putting the Democratic Party on public record by basing the whole reelection strategy of President Obama on opposing the most retrograde and extreme forms of predatory capitalism including outsourcing - however hypocritical this may be. How much this will actually affect policy - time will tell. But now it is in the mainstream of popular discussion and front and center in the market place of ideas that there is something wrong with outsourcing and there is something wrong with this extreme form of speculation driven casino capitalism. To change a long established political-economic policy it is necessary to change the political culture. Let's hope the Clintonesque era of defending these kind of policies are over. The Democrats have now learned that they cannot run and win anymore simply representing the left-wing caucus of hedge fund managers and private equity firms.

[JoePhilly]

171. More like ... Disingenuous Attack on Obama by Right Wing.

The key message is, as always ... DEMS STAY HOME!!!

[Tarheel_Dem]

177. It's outright attempts at suppression, and against the TOS. I don't get it.

[JoePhilly]

182. I like mocking this nonsense, so I'm ok if it stands ...

things like this appear in other parts of the internets, and my bet is some who lurk here, can learn from this.

They need to know that there is an active attempt to discourage them from voting. So that when they see this nonsense, and folks like us aren't around, they at least question it.

I should mention that as a juror on DU, I let almost anything stand.

[Tarheel_Dem]

185. Sign me up for "the mocking".

And I may have served on 3 juries. I'll either decline, or accept & then decline except in very clear cases.

[sabrina 1]

191. You think very little of Democrats. Why is that?

You are of the opinion that Democratic voters are so stupid they need you to suppress information otherwise all Democrats, too stupid to be able to assess the situation, will run out and vote for Republicans. Like they did in 2008.

What a truly odd position to take. If anything will suppress the vote it is people who attempt to 'protect' grown up adults from facing political facts. It makes Democrats look scared frankly. We are NOT scared to face political reality and to deal with it at a time when it is most effective to do so.

But what is really interesting about this discussion, and I'm in agreement with you on one thing, I would not want any of it hidden, is the fact that a small number of people in this thread are okay with putting Republicans in positions of power.

Is this your position also? You have no objection to Republicans rather than Democrats, being appointed to very powerful positions AFTER we throw them out?

[JoePhilly]

224. I did not take the position you ascribe to me, but its a nice strawman.

So I'll respond point by point.

You are of the opinion that Democratic voters are so stupid they need you to suppress information otherwise all Democrats, too stupid to be able to assess the situation, will run out and vote for Republicans. Like they did in 2008.

No, you made this up this nonsense. I don't think Democratic voters are stupid. Not at all. But I do think its easy to cherry pick attacks, and then influence people. If this was not true, you would not have Republicans on TV constantly saying "the American people believe ... blah blah blah" ... they do this to try and influence low information people, people (left and right) who want to be with the "majority". Its a way to manipulate opinion. I know a little about this. My PhD is in Psychology.

What a truly odd position to take. If anything will suppress the vote it is people who attempt to 'protect' grown up adults from facing political facts. It makes Democrats look scared frankly. We are NOT scared to face political reality and to deal with it at a time when it is most effective to do so.

When I talk about suppressing the vote, I am talking about at very obvious phenomenon going on in the media. There are two sets of attacks on Obama. One crafted to anger the right wing and get them to vote. Another to frustrate the left and get them to stay home. Obama beat McCain by about 6%, so if you can shift the turn-out, increase the rw, and decrease the left, Romney has a shot at winning. And so, articles are pushed into the media so that they move to the internet, and discussion boards like this one. The person writing the OP may or may not be trying to supress the vote, but those who push many of these over the top, hyperbole driven attacks have that intent.

But what is really interesting about this discussion, and I'm in agreement with you on one thing, I would not want any of it hidden, is the fact that a small number of people in this thread are okay with putting Republicans in positions of power.

I don't like to hide things. I rarely vote to hide a post. As for having Republicans in positions of power, I'd say it depends. Or is your position that every Republican is evil and must be shunned. Is that what I should take from your comment, or would I be creating a false strawman about you?

Is this your position also? You have no objection to Republicans rather than Democrats, being appointed to very powerful positions AFTER we throw them out?

Now this statement makes me wonder if my strawman above is correct. You seem to start with the position "Republicans are evil". I don't. The correct answer is "it depends". I also have some Republicans in my family, should I shun them?

Bottom line ... this site is focused on electing DEMOCRATS to office. And we are now about 4 months from the Presidential election. There are two candidates.

Now ... you don't seem to like Obama ... fine ... when will you start the Progressive Prez 2016 group? A group dedicated to finding a better progressive candidate for 2016. See, if one of Obama detractors on DU started this group, and they became proactive about finding that candidate, I'd take them more seriously.

[sabrina 1]

225. You were doing okay up to your last paragraph, which is something you apparently made up

in your own mind and just threw in there, confirming my impression that you think democratic voters are stupid.

Fyi, I have supported Obama since I first heard him speak in 2004 and followed him and supported him when he ran for the Senate and in the 2008 campaign. That does not mean I always agreed with him or hesitated to say so. What you don't seem to grasp, as your last paragraph clearly demonstrates, is that someone can support a candidate while disagreeing on certain policies. Intelligent voters, which I believe most Democratic voters to be, do not expect to agree with a candidate on every issue.

There is no need to worry about Democratic voters not showing up. They showed up in 2010 which is why Democrats held onto the Senate, even though they were disappointed about some issues at the time. They know the stakes. It was Independents who did not show up.

As for Republicans being evil, yes, I believe the current Republican Party, especially now, is evil, promotes evil policies and appears to march in lockstep so it's hard to tell if there are any actual independent thinkers left in the Party anymore.

I totally object at this time to empowering any Republican who has not condemned the ideology that is driving that party. I have yet to hear a single Republican condemn the racism, the insanity of the leaders of that party, except for maybe, McCain during the campaign. But I would not want him appointed to any position in a Democratic administration either for what I think should be obvious reasons.

I am of the belief that Democrats are far better choices for positions of power. You may differ, which apparently you do.

We do not vote for Republicans and would not. So to have them foisted on us after we defeat them, is not what we expect. I want to see Dems in control of every branch of Government and every important position within this administration. Sorry if that bothers you.

Finally, since you made a claim regarding me 'not liking' this president, I challenge you to link to any comment of mine that has ever disrespected this president or given anyone the idea that I do not like him. Your assumption that because someone disagrees with some of his decisions, translates into 'not liking him', is proof of what I said initially, it is a simplistic conclusion to reach without anything to base it on other than the perfectly natural reaction of even supporters, to policy decisions that affect their lives.

We are supposed to push politicians we support to stick to their campaign promises. Not only is it a duty for citizens to do so, Politicians need the people behind them when they are making decisions with so many influences in DC putting pressure on them to break those promises. I believe the President said that himself, actually.

I will repeat what I said before, I am more concerned about voters, mainly Independents who are needed to win any election, being turned off by those who constantly attack and question the loyalty of voters who have some genuine concerns, only to be dismissed as 'not liking the president' or whatever. I don't care, I've been attacked by those who invented political attacks on the Right and am not easily influenced by such nastiness nor do I blame the candidate for what some of his/her supporters do in their name. But a lot of people on the fence will be turned off, not by those of us who listen to their concerns, but those who mock and dismiss their concerns. That is very bad strategy.

[emulatorloo]

184. "Dems Stay Home!"

I seriously don't get it either. It has gone on for a long time now

It has always been pretty obvious. This is more obvious than prior ones because of the right wing author.

[Tarheel_Dem]

186. The good news is that we know that Skinner does have a breaking point.

You Better Believe It!

[treestar]

194. Ha!

[Tarheel_Dem]

197. Hey tree!

[treestar]

201. Hi Tar!

[JoePhilly]

187. My view ... as Obama's reelection becomes more assured ...

articles like the one in this OP will become more and more shrill, and desperate.

[emulatorloo]

190. Agreed. n/t

[SidDithers]

205. Agreed...nt

Sid

[Blue_Roses]

178. Your quoting from a guy who has said he "leans right"

on the conservative talk blog of Matt Lewis?

http://www.mattklewis.com/?p=6358


But then, coming from you, I'm not surprised.

[ibegurpard]

181. I don't care if his actions match his rhetoric or not right now

It's a conversation that this nation needs to be having very LOUDLY and he deserves credit for this much at least.

[SidDithers]

203. Drive-by, turd in the punchbowl...

Sid

[sabrina 1]

207. So again, you have not explained this. Why do you support putting Republicans in

positions of power AFTER we Democrats defeat them? Two people have graciously responded to this question, but you appear to be avoiding it. I am interested in hearing the rationale of those who are now supporting Republicans in positions of power, after the people have rejected them and their devastating policies for this country.

[SidDithers]

208. Hey sabrina, is Immelt in the cabinet?...nt

Sid

[sabrina 1]

212. Hey Sid, why won't answer the question? Do you support Republicans being given

the kind of power given to Immelt, when Democrats defeat them?

Btw, that old trick, the one where you try to distract from the actual issue by focusing on a word because you don't want to answer uncomfortable questions, we here in the US, especially Democrats, are very familiar with it, especially those of us who argue frequently with Republicans, and we know what it means when someone resorts to it.

[SidDithers]

213. "Or are you disputing the fact that Immelt was appointed to this president's cabinet? "..

Sid

[sabrina 1]

222. Why so much game-playing to avoid answering a simple question?

Could it be that after all your wailing about the 'loyalty' of true Democrats here, it turns out that you yourself support Republicans, like Immelt, being restored to power by Democrats after we defeat them?

Do you support Republicans being positions of power after we Democrats successfully defeat them?

Such a simple question easily answered by anyone who opposes empowering Republicans.

[Drunken Irishman]

215. So, who will you be voting for?

[Iggy]

226. Correct: NAFTA

which was strongly advocated for by Clinton/Gore and rammed thru congress on the fast track-- by both
dems and repugs. "funny" how the one percent can get legislation passed which benefits THEM over the rest
of us.

I'm a former UAW member, so I can tell you one of the things NAFTA did "for us" was allow engines for trucks/cars
to be assembled in Mexico-- by cheap labor-- then shipped up to Detroit to be installed by low skilled (cheap labor
again) into cars and trucks. sound good for U.S. workers? prior to NAFTA, companies had to pay considerable
tariffs to make that happen

and correct again: the _bogus_ "jobs czar", CEO of GE Mr. Immelt. what a load this guy is. WHERE is he?

well, sir, WHERE are the U.S. jobs????

and of course we know GE paid ZERO taxes in 2010, all while making Billions in profit that year.

So yes, it appears the whole Bain/outsourcing/taxes tact is hypocritical.