Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

We Have Nothing to Fear, But Fear of a One Term Presidency

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
McCamy Taylor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-10 01:20 AM
Original message
We Have Nothing to Fear, But Fear of a One Term Presidency
Edited on Wed Jul-21-10 01:24 AM by McCamy Taylor
I. The Obama Presidency in One Word

Give me a word that describes Obamas tenure in the White House. Change? I dont think so. Progressive? No, progressive Democrats, like Howard Dean are the enemy.

On Wednesday, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs strongly hit back at former DNC Chairman Howard Dean for criticizing the Senate health care bill, suggesting, at one point, that Dean was being irrational and didn't understand the contents of the legislation.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/16/gibbs-lashes-b...

Is that the word I am searching for? Rational? Hmmm. Rational Democrats do not alienate the base by cheering on the (strike breaking, union busting) mass firing of teachers.

The largest unions meeting opened here on Saturday to a drumbeat of heated rhetoric, with several speakers calling for Mr. Duncans resignation, hooting delegates voting for a resolution criticizing federal programs for undermining public education, and the unions president summing up 18 months of Obama education policies by saying, This is not the change I hoped for."

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/05/education/05teachers....

Nope, rational is not the word. Maybe we should try a different c word, like courtly. As in courting the religious right on the issue of immigration reform while selling out Gays and Lesbians,

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/7/20/885840/-Obamas-...

and courting the banksters by selling out home owners.

More than twice as many homeowners were kicked out of the Obama administration's signature foreclosure-prevention program last month as were granted permanent relief, new data released Monday show.
snip
"I think it's great to take these numbers in context... with the broad efforts to stabilize the housing market," said David Stevens, chief of the Federal Housing Administration.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/17/hamp-update-tw...


and courting the right wing on the issue of health care reform by selling out women,

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/19/health-care-re...


women and LGBT and home owners being such a small percentage of the U.S. population, and therefore a fringe groups whose rights, opinions and votes do not matter.

The Catholic bishops "welcome this new policy," said Cardinal Daniel DiNardo, although he added the organization remains concerned that other parts of the health care overhaul will promote abortion.
NARAL Pro-Choice America called it "inexplicable and wrongheaded."


Inexplicable? I can explain it with one word. Safe. The Obama administration is playing it safe so that nothing will stand in the way of his re-election.

II. Re-election Machine

A presidents reelection campaign the reelect, as Obama intimates are already calling it is a massive, lavishly funded machine that hires hundreds of people and spends hundreds of millions of dollars to carry out the mechanics of a national campaign, while the candidate and many of his top aides continue their day jobs of running the free world.


http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0210/33411_Page2.h...

Good to know that Obama was already on top of this all important issue way back in February, 2010.

When unemployment was at 9.7 %, exactly where it was six months before,

http://www.economicpopulist.org/content/unemployment-97...

and where it still is today.

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/Economics/Unemployment-...

I wonder if FDR was busy planning his re-election campaign in 1933 when he gave this innaugural address, declaring war on the Great Depression.

The first document featured with this article is the speech given on Inauguration Day in March 1933. It is particularly memorable for its attack on the psychology of the Great Depression. Less memorable but more enduring is the justification that Roosevelt planned to use to expand the power of the federal government to achieve his legislative objectives and thereby ease the effects of the Great Depression. Woven throughout his inaugural address was his plan. He aimed to declare war on the Great Depression and needed all the executive latitude possible in order to wage that war. For in addition to his famous statement "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself," he also said "I shall ask the Congress for the one remaining instrument to meet the crisis -- broad Executive power to wage a war against the emergency, as great as the power that would be given to me if we were in fact invaded by a foreign foe."


http://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/fdr-inaugural /

Asking for broad executive power to do things which had not been done before was not the safe choice. On the contrary, it was a bold choice, which won FDR many enemies within the business and banking communities but which ultimately won him the hearts of the American people, too.

Now, compare FDR to another American president, one who also confronted recession.

As President Bush travels the country in search of re-election, he seems unable to escape a central problem: This career politician, who has lived the cloistered life of a top Washington bureaucrat for decades, is having trouble presenting himself to the electorate as a man in touch with middle-class life.


http://www.nytimes.com/1992/02/05/us/bush-encounters-th...

The recession cost Bush Sr. the 1992 election. Or, rather, his seeming indifference to the plight of Americans suffering the effects of the recession cost him the election. Funny, no one was as determined to be a two term president as Bush Sr. He played it safe , taking care not to cater to his partys far right wing for fear of appearing extremist. So, how did that work out for him in 1992?

It is going to take one hell of a Re-election Machine to make Americans forget that they are unemployed and their insurance has run out and no one in DC gives a damn. We are talking a Morning in America Hollywood extravaganza like the one Nancy cooked up in 1984. Obama will have to raise more than the $740 million he collected for the 2008 election.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=...

No wonder he is taking such care not to alienate any potential big business donors, like the health insurance industry and the pharmaceutical industry, both of whom cleaned up on health care reform, and the banking industry which is basically writing its own check, and the telecommunications industry ---he got them on his side way back in 2008 when he gave them immunity for illegal wiretapping.

III. Speaking of the U.S. Constitution

Obama presented himself to us as a Constitutional scholar. That means he knows better. So why does he continue Bush-Cheney (illegal) policies of torture, rendition for torture, wiretaps and the general suspension of the rules of law?

Regarding the restoration of Habeas Corpus, the Bagram Air Base is still being used to hold "enemy combatants" who have no right to Habeas Corpus and no right to any other form of legal process.
At the current time, the President's pledge to end Renditions (which is a term used to describe the apprehension and extrajudicial transfer of a person from one State to another) is still being used and has been re-authorized for use by President Barack Obama. This allows for "Torture by proxy" as the United States typically uses this process to transfer suspected terrorists to States that employ harsh interrogation techniques

http://www.change.org/petitions/view/what_happened_to_c...

Obama has used the Department of Justice to defend the expanded executive privileges which Bush seized for the office of the president.

The judge harshly criticized the Obama Justice Department for invoking the so-called state-secrets privilege, saying it would allow "unfettered executive-branch discretion", with "obvious potential for governmental abuse and overreaching".
The Obama defense strategy came to light last year, and for many, it was a disturbing deja vu of the brass knuckles tactics of the Bush years. The Huffington Post's Dan Froomkin had this from Louis Fisher, a constitutional law specialist at the Library of Congress.
If an administration is at liberty to invoke the state secrets privilege to prevent litigation from moving forward, thus eliminating independent judicial review, could not the administration use the privilege to conceal violations of statutes, treaties, and the Constitution? What check would exist for illegal actions by the executive branch?


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/janine-r-wedel/emshadow-e...

Scary! No, make that scared . The Obama Re-election Machine does not have a bad case of megalomania. It is scared shitless. What if some nut job with a middle eastern sounding name blows up something in the United States? How will it look if Obama is one iota less of a Constitutional law breaker than his predecessor? What it (forbid the thought) someone calls him weak on terror?

How do I know that Obama isnt doing it for the power? If he was the kind of man who really wanted to give himself expanded executive powers to fight terra-ists, he would not just stand around bitching about Congressional dead lock. He would follow FDRs example and seize some powers to fight unemployment and poverty and starvation at home.

IV. The Illusion of Safety

Barack Obama seldom makes mistakes. He thinks through his public statements. He is careful to address both sides of every issue and alienate no one. But no matter how careful a politician is, no matter how closely he parses the word "is", inevitably he will say the wrong thing:

Obama told the Palm Beach Post that he would be willing to open Florida's coast for more drilling as part of a "comprehensive energy policy that can bring down gas prices.''


http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/xxfactor/archive/2008/...

Since there is no such thing as safety in politics, maybe the current administration could take a few risks for the sake of the country. There are much worse things than losing an election.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
villager Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-10 01:24 AM
Response to Original message
1. well, the hit-and-run unreccers are uhappy -- which must mean you've raised some salient points
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SeattleGirl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-10 01:36 AM
Response to Reply #1
10. Hmmm, do you say the same thing about the reccers who
recommend posts based on nothing but opinion, inuendo and conjecture?

No, I didn't think so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
villager Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-10 01:51 AM
Response to Reply #10
25. Huh?
Do you always stay up this late in order to put words in people's mouths?

Yes, I thought so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-10 01:59 AM
Response to Reply #25
30. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator.
 
elocs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-10 02:45 AM
Response to Reply #1
45. The hit-n-run UnReccers are ecstatic that you used the very 1st post to point out their action.
They thank you: :toast: :fistbump: :thumbsup:

Of course, then again, isn't it terrible when people express their opinion? Of course, under your rules those who give an UnRec are then required to kick a thread with which they do not agree by responding.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Deep13 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-10 08:02 AM
Response to Reply #45
95. How do you know they're ecstatic? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
elocs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-10 08:20 AM
Response to Reply #95
100. Just a guess, if they are like trolls they love attention. Posters here provide it.
Complaining about UnRecs is simply stupid, especially in the first minutes after a thread is posted. Do people actually sit and refresh a page to keep up with the number of Recs? Somebody needs to get a life.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SidDithers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-10 08:29 AM
Response to Reply #100
102. +1...
I always laugh my ass off when the first reply to a post is a complaint about unrec. Some damn fragile egos around here :rofl:

Sid
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftstreet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-10 01:26 AM
Response to Original message
2. K&R
Bookmarking - excellent links!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Drunken Irishman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-10 01:27 AM
Response to Original message
3. So what exactly are you trying to say?
Edited on Wed Jul-21-10 01:30 AM by Drunken Irishman
That Pres. Obama is the devil?

Okay.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
McCamy Taylor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-10 01:31 AM
Response to Reply #3
6. Ummm... no actually the devil is not afraid to take an unpopular position.
It is probably Satan's (in Paradise Lost) only redeeming feature.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Drunken Irishman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-10 01:34 AM
Response to Reply #6
8. Your whole post suggests what he's done is unpopular to YOU.
So I guess he's done the unpopular at times, eh?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hawkowl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-10 01:30 AM
Response to Original message
4. Apparently Obama is not intent on second term
I think the o.p. makes a good case that Obama is alienating his base, i.e; the people who get other democrats to turn out and vote. It means either Obama is a self destructive moron (unlikely) or he really doesn't want to be reelected.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Drunken Irishman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-10 01:33 AM
Response to Reply #4
7. Or maybe the OP is living in the DU bubble...
Which happens a lot. Go look at the news. Read the papers. See the polls. Pres. Obama's approval rating has been remarkably stable over the course of the last seven or eight months. What's more, his approval among the base is as strong as it's always been.

Most polls show him besting the Republicans in 2012 (one poll from last week indicated the opposite, but was rather quickly debunked by most here at DU). Moreover, the Democrats now lead in the generic congressional ballot according to Gallup.

SO what exactly leads you to believe he's alienating the base? Because DU doesn't like him? Well I hate to be the one to break it to ya'll, but DU ain't the base. It's the fringe.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
McCamy Taylor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-10 01:38 AM
Response to Reply #7
11. "DU ain't the base. It's the fringe." Drunken Irishman.
Wow. Just wow.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SeattleGirl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-10 01:40 AM
Response to Reply #11
13. "Wow. Just wow." Wow what?
Edited on Wed Jul-21-10 01:41 AM by SeattleGirl
Do you honestly think that those on DU who are dissatisfied with Obama (and who probably never will be) are an accurate reflection of what many Democrats and others who voted for Obama across this country feel about him?

I would dare to say you are incorrect.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pattmarty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-10 07:07 AM
Response to Reply #13
85. You two ought to form a fucking tag team. I'll say the same to you..............
..........Get back to us after Nov 2.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
scheming daemons Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-10 01:40 AM
Response to Reply #11
14. It's a true statement. 80% of Dems support Obama... but less than 50% of DU

Dennis Kucinich wins straw polls on DU all the time... but could never get more than 3% when he actually ran for the nomination.


DU is left of the Democratic base.


That's not a good thing or a bad thing. Just a fact.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Drunken Irishman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-10 02:23 AM
Response to Reply #11
37. It's 100% true...
DU isn't the base. The base likes Obama. The base would go to the mat for Obama.

DU? Not so much.

DU will vote for Obama. Most of 'em anyway. But they don't like him. It's obvious from your post (and the posts you made during the general) that you don't hold a high opinion of the man and you don't approve of him.

But at least 80% of Democrats support and approve of Obama. That's the low number, too. Some polls have it closer to 90% and higher.

So no, DU isn't the base. It's part of the base - but it doesn't represent the base no more than Hillaryis44 represents the base.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kahuna Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-10 07:24 AM
Response to Reply #11
88. That just happens to be the truth. Glad that you don't like it.
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SeattleGirl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-10 01:38 AM
Response to Reply #7
12. The DU bubble is a tiny, tiny bubble at that.
Interesting that some people think it is a reflection of the outer world.

Even more interesting that it's not. :)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
McCamy Taylor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-10 01:41 AM
Response to Reply #12
15. If DU is insignificant, what is the Re-election Machine doing here?
Big waste of time and money, if you ask me. Aren't there some right wingers at Free Republic that need courting?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SeattleGirl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-10 01:42 AM
Response to Reply #15
18. If you are accusing me of being a Freeper, you should watch it.
I am not a freeper.

Just because I don't agree with your OP doesn't mean I'm not a Democrat.

And btw, is that all you have? Just slinging out one-liners when someone doesn't agree with you?

And what re-election machine?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
McCamy Taylor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-10 01:53 AM
Response to Reply #18
27. I didnt' call you a Freeper. Your subject line is deliberately misleading
in order to create the impression that I did something I did not do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Drunken Irishman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-10 02:23 AM
Response to Reply #15
38. What re-election machine?
Do I work for this machine?

Where's my compensation!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-10 07:04 AM
Response to Reply #7
84. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator.
 
NeedleCast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-10 07:50 AM
Response to Reply #84
92. You need to understand the difference between broad polls, and polls of democrats
Most polls I've seen of registered Democrats put his approval rating at 80+% across the board with democrats. The fact that his approval rating is very low among registered Republicans is why his overalls are in the upper 40's and low 50s.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pattmarty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-10 08:06 AM
Response to Reply #92
96. Yeah, and what exactly are you trying to say? I fucking know the...........
......difference. How do you think electoral polls are done? Fuck, you have seen the polls too so you know his "approval" (among the general populace, NOT DEMOCRATS) is in the low 40's. I am not trying to be "funny" or a fucking smartass here, this is the latest polling, like in FACTS.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pattmarty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-10 08:15 AM
Response to Reply #92
99. You know, if ONLY Democrats voted Obama would win in a fucking.............
..........landslide. But I KNOW that is not the case. You might want to do a little more reading.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kahuna Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-10 09:10 AM
Response to Reply #84
106. That's because a lot of progressives want to pick up their marbles..
Edited on Wed Jul-21-10 09:14 AM by Kahuna
and stay home to punish the Democrats because they haven't undone bushco yet. Which is totally ridiculous. They will get what they are asking for and bitch even louder like they did when they voted for nader to punish Al Gore, and bitched for 8 years about bushco. Yeah. We've heard it before and we're used to it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tavalon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-10 01:10 PM
Response to Reply #106
121. Nope, I'll do the adult thing and vote for him and his useless Congresscritters
But I won't GOTV and I won't help run the campaign offices and man the phone banks. I only do that stuff for people I respect. I believed his slick marketing in the run up to the Presidency. Do you really think I'll buy the same stuff twice? I would have if he had governed as he promised to govern. He hasn't and I have eyes and ears. He's done some good stuff but it pales because we put him in there to be bold and to kick ass and take names. He's done none of that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tavalon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-10 01:04 PM
Response to Reply #7
120. Well, if that's the case, you shouldn't worry that we little DUers
will have any impact. Don't worry, we'll vote for him, the lesser of two evils and since none of us here were his groundtroops nor were we sending every last dime to his campaign that we had, he won't miss that either. So why get your dander up that we've noticed he is an ineffectual and too careful leader? Remember, we're just the "fucking retards. " per Mr. Emmanuel, so no reason to get your dander up. I'm sure just as many people will hit the streets for the GOTV and empty their pockets for his reelection as before so no problem, right?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JuniperLea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-10 02:21 PM
Response to Reply #7
129. Spot on!
:applause:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
backwoodsbob Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-10 06:46 PM
Response to Reply #7
138. then we little DU'ers who say screw it won't matter right?
if I sit home it won't matter because we are some pissants
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Drunken Irishman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-22-10 10:00 PM
Response to Reply #138
152. Sit home and whine like a baby.
DUers are good at that. Don't get their way so they stomp their feet and cry.

But eh. If you don't want to vote. Don't. I don't really care.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
girl gone mad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-10 07:53 PM
Response to Reply #7
142. I think you're living in a bubble.
Get out in the world. Talk to people.

The dissatisfaction on DU mirrors what I hear in real life.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Drunken Irishman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-22-10 09:59 PM
Response to Reply #142
151. The freeper life, maybe...
Edited on Thu Jul-22-10 10:01 PM by Drunken Irishman
But the base life? Not even. Unless you can find me a poll that shows Obama with a negative approval rating among Democrats. If not, I'll happily accept your apology. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SeattleGirl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-10 01:45 AM
Response to Reply #4
22. Or maybe the OP's opinion is just that: the OP's opinion
and not based in the facts one can find out in the real world.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dystopian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-10 01:31 AM
Response to Original message
5. KandR.
peace~
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
scheming daemons Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-10 01:36 AM
Response to Original message
9. All that typing when you could have simply said: "I wish Hillary had won"

The primaries ended two years ago, let it go.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
readmoreoften Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-10 01:42 AM
Response to Reply #9
16. Yeah, because progressives are all upset that Hillary lost. That must be it.
:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
scheming daemons Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-10 01:44 AM
Response to Reply #16
20. The OP was an unabashed Hillary backer.... not a "progressive"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-10 01:49 AM
Response to Reply #20
24. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator.
 
SeattleGirl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-10 02:00 AM
Response to Reply #24
31. Interesting. Sounds like you might be inferring that Obama
would approve of those words, or that those of us who support him would.

Hmmmmmmm.....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pattmarty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-10 07:12 AM
Response to Reply #20
86. What the fuck are you talking about? Boy you "late" posters are..........
........either on some weird drugs or sitting at the bar with laptops open.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dionysus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-10 04:05 PM
Response to Reply #20
135. i think it's funnythat some people, who were stone cold DLCers for years on DU,
morphed themselves into "uber progressives" in order to preserve an attack angle.

what, people aren't going to notice crap like that?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Scurrilous Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-10 01:43 AM
Response to Reply #9
19. LOL
A lot of that tonight.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-10 03:21 AM
Response to Reply #9
56. Yahtzee. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dionysus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-10 10:55 AM
Response to Reply #9
115. ROFL
:spray:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JuniperLea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-10 02:22 PM
Response to Reply #9
130. BWAAAHAHAHAHA!
How concise, and correct!

:rofl:

:applause:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-10 01:42 AM
Response to Original message
17. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator.
 
SeattleGirl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-10 01:44 AM
Response to Reply #17
21. Um, the primaries are done and gone.
Hillary is SoC and doing a bang-up job.

Leave it alone, okay?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saracat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-10 02:09 AM
Response to Reply #21
34.  Some just can never stop beating the primaries to death.The OP wasn't about the Primary
and yet posts are made debating it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Senator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-10 03:38 AM
Response to Reply #21
64. Um, the primaries aren't until 2012.
And Obama might even opt out, like LBJ.

Hillary could also opt out of her bang-up job at any time.

What exactly are you asking be left alone?

----

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pokercat999 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-10 05:04 AM
Response to Reply #64
78. Could we hope they both opt out and by default we get a
progressive for President?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Senator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-10 06:31 AM
Response to Reply #78
81. You mean hope and change
... by default? Dunno if that's a change to believe in.

I would imagine if the field were that open, the Rahm Squad would be telling us our only hope was Joe Lieberman.

--
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pokercat999 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-22-10 05:48 AM
Response to Reply #81
148. I have no idea why I care, if I had a poker room nearby I
would play poker about 80 hours a week and ignore the rest of the world. Except for golf and fishing of course. :evilgrin:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tavalon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-10 01:23 PM
Response to Reply #21
122. Yeah, she is doing a pretty good job
I knew she would go for the Clintonian triangulation as the CoC and I knew I didn't want that and the fiery young guy seemed like he might buck the system. Alas, he's gone in for the Clintonian triangulation completely. In for a dime, in for a dollar.

That which I wanted to avoid by not voting for HRC left me open to be manipulated by a man who governs just as I feared she would. Sucks. If I had listened carefully and ignored the emotions he so easily stirred in me with his soaring oratorical skills, I would have realized that we had, in the end, been given the choice between the first female President or the first black President but that they would both govern with Bill Clinton's finger to the wind style, a style that ignored the liberals and gave us much that was good and little that was great. I wanted great and I felt the dire times required someone great, but it was never in the cards.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jaxx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-10 01:52 AM
Response to Reply #17
26. And if another Democrat doesn't win....
All the carping in the world won't make that go away.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
McCamy Taylor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-10 01:55 AM
Response to Reply #26
28. It will be Obama's fault for alienating the American worker.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SeattleGirl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-10 02:01 AM
Response to Reply #28
32. Wow, you mean all the hundreds and hundreds of pictures
Edited on Wed Jul-21-10 02:01 AM by SeattleGirl
and comments I've seen and read by American workers that are positive were just photoshops and LIES??????

Wow.

I just had no idea.

I'm sooooooo glad I have people like you to set my li'l ol' brain straight.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cherchez la Femme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-10 04:29 AM
Response to Reply #32
74. But not
Edited on Wed Jul-21-10 04:48 AM by Cherchez la Femme
UNION workers, especially;
surely that is self-evident!

BTW, care to share the links of those "hundreds and hundreds" of American workers?
Current, RECENT workers post-"helped" by this administrations union-busting, of course!
Sure & begorrah, surely it will warm the cockles of my little liberal heart to see all those happy, content, shiny people!

I'd really love to read how all those pictures, comments and links of the "hundreds and hundreds" of workers who are thrilled because their wages and benefits, correcting for time & inflation, are no higher than Depression-era workers;
those who, like today, are extremely lucky to even have a job!

Dang, the future's, even the Present's so bright I gotta wear shades! :hippie:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Better Today Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-10 02:21 AM
Response to Reply #28
36. Ding ding ding! Exactly correct. Too much unemployment for too long, too much union busting,
too much suckling at the teat of big banks, big insurance, and big corps. He's turned out to be a true disappointment. I was visiting with a crowd of youngsters (20-28 yos) who volunteered for and voted for Obama. Of 15, 12 have jobs, slightly over minimum wage, but all of them have older parents or aunts/uncles who are unemployed and have been for a long time, and will be likely for even longer. These youngsters are so disillusioned and have no intent on putting any effort into his re-election. They aren't going to vote republican, they just see no point whatsoever in participating when it's obvious their hard work and dedication has turned out the equal little or no change or hope or anything better.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Drunken Irishman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-10 02:27 AM
Response to Reply #36
39. I am a 20-28 year old and all my friends LOVE Obama!
:toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-10 02:30 AM
Response to Reply #39
41. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator.
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-10 02:31 AM
Response to Reply #41
42. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator.
 
Cherchez la Femme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-10 04:47 AM
Response to Reply #42
76. GOOD for YOU!
You got yours, right?
So tough for everybody else!

...now WHERE have I heard that sentiment before?
Ach, nevermind, it'll come to me...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Drunken Irishman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-10 05:04 AM
Response to Reply #76
77. Do you read?
When did I ever say tough luck for everybody else?

So because not everyone in America is employed, I should just consider Obama a failure and my benefit of his actions pointless? Fuck that.

It's sad that a great deal of people are still suffering. But you know what? There are a great deal of people who aren't suffering because of Pres. Obama. Does it mean everything is perfect? Of course not. But it does mean, thanks to our President, I was able to keep my job and it means an extra $1,000 for a college student who grew up mostly lower middle class my entire life.

So fuck those who feel the need to tell me I haven't benefited from Obama's policies. Or that I'm pampered. Or that I can't be proud and thankful that MY PRESIDENT gave my the opportunity!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ghost in the Machine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-10 08:24 AM
Response to Reply #77
101. "There are a great deal of people who aren't suffering because of Pres. Obama"
You're right... but who gives a fuck about the banksters, the Wall Street elite and the corporate fatcats?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bobbolink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-10 02:05 PM
Response to Reply #77
126. "So fuck those" Yup, that is exactly the attitude. We get it, we GOT it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cherchez la Femme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-10 02:16 PM
Response to Reply #77
128. Nah, I just wing it through these confusing
combination's of the alphabet :eyes:

"So because not everyone in America is employed, I should just consider Obama a failure and my benefit of his actions pointless? Fuck that."

--the jist of the deleted post was 'np because I got mine'
nowhere did you care for those who are jobless, homeless, everything-less, so I stand by my comment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-10 02:53 PM
Response to Reply #128
133. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator.
 
fishbulb703 Donating Member (492 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-10 03:14 AM
Response to Reply #41
53. Or he is a college student. All the college dems love obama, at least here at UF.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Better Today Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-10 03:19 AM
Response to Reply #53
55. You may have a point, all the one's I talked to were either graduated or non-student. Even so,
only 3 were unemployed, though all felt underemployed. It was what they were seeing in line for their elders that had them pissed and I think a bit scared. It's not been very often, that I know of, where so many have parents unemployed and scared and, as one put it, getting quite literally ill from the stress and fear and overwhelming despair. I was actually touched by how concerned they were for them, and fully understanding of how .... impotent they felt after having tried so hard to support "change" they thought would save the day for those around them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pattmarty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-10 07:19 AM
Response to Reply #39
87. "Love" and getting them to vote Nov 2 are two entirely different things..........
..........I am a 62-64 year old and I "loved" obama too. I thought he would be a transformative President like an FDR or LBJ. But no, all we got was a black Bill Clinton. AND, he will LOSE in 2012 unless he gets the unemployment under control, and that's a fucking bottom line fact.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
girl gone mad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-10 08:00 PM
Response to Reply #39
143. Then you better hope your state can help him carry the election.
Oh... wait..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jaxx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-10 02:37 AM
Response to Reply #28
43. That's a load.
I can't imagine why a Democrat would find anything progressive in trying to destroy a Democratic President. Workers support this President, and they'll continue to support him. The fringe....not so much.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tavalon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-10 01:31 PM
Response to Reply #43
123. I will vote for him if he chooses to run a second term
My vote will count the same as it did last time. What I won't be doing is canvassing or sending my last dollar to him. That sort of stuff is done out of love and loyalty and it's a two way street. There hasn't been much loyalty or love coming from this administration unless you happen to be a Wall Street Fat Cat or an Oil company with spillage problems or a "Healthcare conglomerate" just itching to bleed the last out of our dysfunctional healthcare system. Let those well cared for people do the GOTV and run the campaign headquarters and send their, ahem, last dollar to Obama.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
treestar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-22-10 11:07 AM
Response to Reply #123
150. It's sounding like a personal relationship
this is politics, not personal relationships. You only shoot yourself in the foot. It really is a matter of the lesser of two evils, that's the reality. Especially with Republicans around, and disproportionately powerful because of the way the Senate is set up. Back better Senators or Congresspeople and work on their campaigns, that is much more useful than overfocusing on the President.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tavalon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 11:58 AM
Response to Reply #150
153. Funny you should mention that
That is exactly what I'm doing. What I was saying regarding the President is that he is getting my vote but not my leg work. Alan Grayson is getting my money and my time. I can't vote for him or I would give him that too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hekate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-10 02:29 AM
Response to Reply #17
40. Fantasy Land post
:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NeedleCast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-10 07:51 AM
Response to Reply #17
93. Yeah, the secretary of state is going to run in a primary against a member of her own party
LOL. Seriously, what planet do some of you come from? How's the weather there?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
grillo7 Donating Member (243 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-10 01:47 AM
Response to Original message
23. Good points...much like the Bob Herbert article floating around
I want a second term too, but Obama has played it too safe and, well...milquetoast. It wouldn't hurt for him to get bold, fight the rethugs, and energize the base. I mean, Harry Reid(!) of all people, recently said Obama needs to play hardball for G-d's sake...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tarheel_Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-10 01:55 AM
Response to Reply #23
29. Shouldn't Harry take his own advice?
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
depakid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-10 02:01 AM
Response to Original message
33. Given what was outlined above- and then some, a one term presidency wouldn't surprise me at all
That said, it would require Republicans nominating an ostensibly competent and moderate candidate- which is about as plausible at this point as the Senate and the Obama administration finding the backbone to fight for traditional Democratic values and constituencies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Drunken Irishman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-10 02:12 AM
Response to Original message
35. Just for you!
Edited on Wed Jul-21-10 02:49 AM by Drunken Irishman


I. The Obama Presidency in One Word

Give me a word that describes Obamas tenure in the White House. Change? I dont think so. Progressive? No, progressive Democrats, like Howard Dean are the enemy.



On Wednesday, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs strongly hit back at former DNC Chairman Howard Dean for criticizing the Senate health care bill, suggesting, at one point, that Dean was being irrational and didn't understand the contents of the legislation.






Nowhere in that article did Gibbs or Obama suggest Howard Dean and progressives were the enemy. Criticizing their opinion, my friend, does not amount to creating an enemies list. In the end, though, didn't Howard Dean ultimately support the senate healthcare legislation? So I guess he sold out too, eh?

All Gibbs suggested, which many progressives suggested too (you know, Bernie Sanders, etc) was those who felt it wasn't good enough were being irrational. And they were. Many on the left still believe it should've been all or nothin. Thank goodness Progressive Howard Dean wasn't one of 'em!



Is that the word I am searching for? Rational? Hmmm. Rational Democrats do not alienate the base by cheering on the (strike breaking, union busting) mass firing of teachers.



Who's alienating the base? Show me a poll that implies the base has been alienated by Pres. Obama. I'll happily eat my words if you can prove that a great deal of the base has been alienated to the point where they no longer support this administration. But you and I both know that, outside of maybe one or two bad polls, you can't find a consistent number that suggests he's lost most of the base - or even is showing signs of losing the base.

If anything, Pres. Obama's numbers among Democrats, you know, the base, has been consistently strong since he took office. Just because you and some fringe DUers don't feel he's doing a good job doesn't mean everyone else on the Democratic side shares YOUR point of view.

This is what pisses me off the most because I'm sick and tired of you people defining who and who isn't the base. I got news for you guys - blacks are the base. Working class voters are the base. Hispanics are the base. College students are even the base. Liberals and moderates and yes, even conservative Democrats, make up the base. You don't have a monopoly on it. So please, stop acting like you do.



Nope, rational is not the word. Maybe we should try a different c word, like courtly. As in courting the religious right on the issue of immigration reform while selling out Gays and Lesbians,



See, this is an issue where Pres. Obama is fucked either way, right? Even though nothing has been set in stone - Pres. Obama goes out and gets a key constituent to ease the potential troubles for immigration reform and he's automatically wrong because they're trying to make demands. Forget for a second that the White House hasn't officially given into those demands or that anything has been off the table - but you've automatically made up your mind!

Of course, had he turned his back to the religious right - knowing they potentially hold the keys to true reform, you'd probably be suggesting he's turning his back on the Hispanics - another key part of the base.

You're smart. You know politics ain't easy and it often means you've got to get down and dirty with the people you hold the highest contempt for. Obama knows the immigration debate isn't going to be easy. He knows there's a very good chance he'll fail or take a huge hit for attempting it. Getting his ducks in a row and getting support from a group that could ultimately prove to be key should be lauded - not attacked.

But I'm willing to bet you would've pounced had he even hinted at the idea of waiting for immigration reform in his second term. That isn't the case, though, is it? I guess there goes your whole theory about doing what is unpopular.


Inexplicable? I can explain it with one word. Safe. The Obama administration is playing it safe so that nothing will stand in the way of his re-election.


Maybe you should look up the word safe, okay? What's safe about healthcare reform? What's safe about taking on illegal immigration? If that's safe, I don't want to know your definition of hard. Cause if Obama was taking it safe, bud, he would've said 'fuck healthcare reform. Fuck immigration reform. Fuck Wall Street reform. Fuck it all.'

And he could have done all that. He could've taken his licks in January when Scott Brown won and retreated in the healthcare fight knowing he was wounded. He could have forgotten about reviving the debate and just focused on the economy. But he didn't, did he? Playing it safe? What a pathetic statement.



I. Re-election Machine



A presidents reelection campaign the reelect, as Obama intimates are already calling it is a massive, lavishly funded machine that hires hundreds of people and spends hundreds of millions of dollars to carry out the mechanics of a national campaign, while the candidate and many of his top aides continue their day jobs of running the free world.




Did you just stop reading that paragraph after the first sentence?

Do you know how politics work in the 21st Century (hell, late-20th Century for that matter)? Remember the Democratic Primary? Talks of that started in 2006! Republicans are already laying the foundation for their runs. It's a new age. Get with the times! We're not in an era where campaigns start in January of the election year. They officially start a year prior to that (Obama and Hillary announced in early 2007, after speculation that they'd run pushed through most of 2006). Hell, Republicans like Mitt Romney and Huckabee were in Iowa days after the 2008 election.

The election season starts earlier and earlier each campaign. Obama would be foolish not to get a head start on the campaign. God knows the Republicans are already doing it.




Good to know that Obama was already on top of this all important issue way back in February, 2010.

When unemployment was at 9.7 %, exactly where it was six months before,

http://www.economicpopulist.org/content/unemployment-97 ...

and where it still is today.

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/Economics/Unemployment -...

I wonder if FDR was busy planning his re-election campaign in 1933 when he gave this innaugural address, declaring war on the Great Depression.


Probably. Roosevelt was a smart man. Do you think he didn't have his ducks in a row during the four years he was in office? Stop acting silly. I know it's silly season sometimes when discussing Pres. Obama, but this is ridiculous.




Asking for broad executive power to do things which had not been done before was not the safe choice. On the contrary, it was a bold choice, which won FDR many enemies within the business and banking communities but which ultimately won him the hearts of the American people, too.

Now, compare FDR to another American president, one who also confronted recession.


As President Bush travels the country in search of re-election, he seems unable to escape a central problem: This career politician, who has lived the cloistered life of a top Washington bureaucrat for decades, is having trouble presenting himself to the electorate as a man in touch with middle-class life.


The recession cost Bush Sr. the 1992 election. Or, rather, his seeming indifference to the plight of Americans suffering the effects of the recession cost him the election. Funny, no one was as determined to be a two term president as Bush Sr. He played it safe , taking care not to cater to his partys far right wing for fear of appearing extremist. So, how did that work out for him in 1992?

It is going to take one hell of a Re-election Machine to make Americans forget that they are unemployed and their insurance has run out and no one in DC gives a damn. We are talking a Morning in America Hollywood extravaganza like the one Nancy cooked up in 1984. Obama will have to raise more than the $740 million he collected for the 2008 election.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid= ...

No wonder he is taking such care not to alienate any potential big business donors, like the health insurance industry and the pharmaceutical industry, both of whom cleaned up on health care reform, and the banking industry which is basically writing its own check, and the telecommunications industry ---he got them on his side way back in 2008 when he gave them immunity for illegal wiretapping.



Your revisionist history is really scary.

Do you know what the unemployment rate was when Roosevelt ran for his second term? 17%. Yeah. You read that right.

FDR overcame such a high unemployment rate and a country still shadowed by a massive depression. Yet Pres. Obama is doomed because unemployment is at 9% nationally - which is a number that while not going down fast enough, hasn't risen, either.

Do you know what happened in Roosevelt's first few years of his second term? ANOTHER RECESSION! Can you believe it? I bet if you and the internet were around back then, you'd be attacking Roosevelt for not getting unemployment down to a reasonable level during his second campaign and then demanding he resign after an economic recession nearly ruined any recovery from that Great Depression.

I see you as the Huey Long type - you know, the man who called the New Deal a sellout to Big Business. His talking points and your talking points aren't much different. Just different presidents, I guess. But the overall message is the same - economy wasn't recovering at a fast enough rate during either Pres. Roosevelt's or Pres. Obama's first term.

One won an election in a landslide, the second will probably too.



III. Speaking of the U.S. Constitution


Funny you mention constitutional attacks. That was what Republicans attacked Roosevelt on the most. Especially when he tried to stack the courts. Hell, even those on the left attacked Roosevelt for parts of the New Deal that was struck down by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional.



Federal New Deal Legislation

The Supreme Court found six of Roosevelt's eight major New Deal statutes unconstitutional, most often due to instances where Congress attempted to exercise the Interstate Commerce Clause in a manner not compatible with the Constitution.

In Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan, 293 US 388 (1935), (aka the Hot Oil Case) the Supreme Court invalidated a section of the National Industrial Recovery Act that regulated the sale of petroleum products between states and foreign entities. The Court held that Congress had overstepped its authority by delegating to the President powers not enumerated in the Constitution. The overturned section of the act prohibited the sale of petroleum in excess of undefined state quotas, and failed to set criteria for applicability of the statute.

In Railroad Retirement Board v. Alton Railway Co., 295 US 330 (1935), the Court invalidated the Railroad Pension Act of 1934 as violating several provisions of the constitution, including passage of ex post facto laws, and creating arbitrary rules and obligations in a manner prohibited by the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause. The Railroad Pension Act made workers who had been employed prior to enactment of the statute eligible for pensions despite their not having contributed to the retirement funds. In addition, the law included former employees who had been fired for cause or who had worked for only a short duration. The Court also held that forcing pensions into a single, pooled fund was unfair to larger carriers who contributed more than smaller carriers, and was not a legitimate exercise of Congressional power under the Interstate Commerce Clause.

In Schechter Poultry Corp. v. US, 295 US 495 (1935), the Supreme Court found certain government-imposed regulations of the poultry industry, such as price- and wage-fixing, unconstitutional. The decision limited the government's power to act under the Interstate Commerce Clause, which it had applied to intrastate commerce, and invalidated a portion of the National Industrial Recovery Act of 1933, closing the National Recovery Administration (NRA). Many of the NRA policies, such as setting minimum wage and restricting work hours, were successfully reenacted under the National Labor Relations Act (aka Wagner Act) passed in July 1935.

In Louisville Joint Stock Land Bank v. Radford, 295 US 555 (1935), decided on the same day as Schechter, the Court struck down as unconstitutional a New Deal addition to the Bankruptcy Act, 75, the Frazier-Lemke Farm Bankruptcy Act of 1934. Under the Frazier-Lemke provision, the federal government exercised eminent domain "in the public interest" by seizing farm property owned by the banks and turning it over to the farmers, in violation of the Fifth Amendment Takings Clause.

In United States v. Butler, 297 US 1 (1936), the Supreme Court held that the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933 was unconstitutional because the federal government imposed a tax on processors of farm products in order to fund a program that paid farmers not to grow crops. The decision restricted the government's ability to impose taxes for purposes other than raising revenue.

In Carter v. Carter Coal Co., 298 US 238 (1936), the Supreme Court overturned the Bituminous Cal Conservation Act of 1935 that attempted to regulate coal prices and wages by empowering local boards to set minimum prices for coal and to provide collective bargaining services for employees, whose wages were abysmally low. The Court ruled Congress had overstepped its authority under the Interstate Commerce Clause and abrogated the state's rights under the Tenth Amendment, by attempting to regulate industry during the production phase. The Court drew a distinction between manufacturing and distribution, affirming the right of the states to regulate production. (This ruling was reversed in NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., 301 US 1 (1937))


State Minimum Wage Law

In Morehead v. New York Ex. Rel. Tipaldo, 298 US 587 (1936) the Supreme Court overturned a New York state law setting minimum wages and work hours for women and children, on the grounds that the law removed from workers the right to negotiate wages in exchange for work under the 14th Amendment Due Process Clause. (This ruling was reversed the following year in West Coast Hotel v. Parrish, 300 US 379 (1937) when the Court upheld Washington state's minimum wage law for women.)

Morehead was only one of several state minimum wage laws the Court overturned in 1935 and 1936. This trend reversed with West Coast Hotel v. Parish, (1937).


Most of the overturned federal legislation was resurrected in other forms, or with appropriate revisions soon after being invalidated. Between 1937 and 1943, President Roosevelt had an opportunity to appoint eight new justices to the Supreme Court, changing the basic tenor of the Court from conservative to progressive.


For more information on US v. Butler, (1936), and the Agricultural Adjustment Act, see Related Questions, below.


But why go there, right?



IV. The Illusion of Safety

Barack Obama seldom makes mistakes. He thinks through his public statements. He is careful to address both sides of every issue and alienate no one. But no matter how careful a politician is, no matter how closely he parses the word "is", inevitably he will say the wrong thing:

Obama told the Palm Beach Post that he would be willing to open Florida's coast for more drilling as part of a "comprehensive energy policy that can bring down gas prices.''


Agreed. Don't open the Florida coasts. But until he actually does, I guess I can't get too mad at his words. I mean, you all keep reminding me Obama is mostly just speeches and little action. So no need to get our panties in a bunch over this one, eh? ;)

Overall, your points are stale. You suggest Pres. Obama might be down the path of a one term president, even though most polls indicate otherwise.

You also suggest Pres. Obama doesn't like to rock the boat - but I think the fact he's the only president in American history to pass healthcare reform and got through the biggest economic stimulus in the post-war era of American history suggests you're wrong.

Now you can compare him to Roosevelt all you want, but they're two different presidents at two different times. Roosevelt had a much larger congress. Roosevelt also had the luxury of most America blaming the opposing party for the economic crisis. While a great deal of Americans do blame the Republicans, it's not nearly as cut and dry. Much of that has to do with the fact that the economic recession happened, or at least hit its peak, during the final months of the Bush administration. The line between when the recession started and when Pres. Obama's term started is very blurred. That's an unfortunate event because it does lead many to believe Obama's policies brought on that recession.

It's obviously an uneducated opinion, but it's an opinion that has stuck regardless.

With all that said, Roosevelt didn't just snap his fingers and end the Great Depression. It was a long and difficult climb back from the pits of economic despair. Unemployment remained extremely high throughout most of Roosevelt's first term. The country then had a setback in the beginning of his second term when a devastating recession hit (ballooning unemployment back into the 20s).

So let's not act as if it was an easy row to hoe for Roosevelt. It wasn't.

And it won't be for Obama.

But I believe we're on the right course.

Though I'm just an apologist. So I don't know much.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SunsetDreams Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-10 02:39 AM
Response to Reply #35
44. + infinity
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
McCamy Taylor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-10 02:46 AM
Response to Reply #35
46. "Only president in American history to pass healthcare reform." Yep, that's the slogan for 2012.
The insurance industry, Big Pharm, hospitals, specialty surgeons and the Catholic Church took advantage of the fact that Obama absolutely, positively had to sign some kind of health legislation so he could run ads saying "Only president in American history to pass healthcare reform!" They probably already have buttons and bumperstickers printed up.

So much of what they do is for appearances. For the next campaign. What concessions working class America has gotten have been from fear of a voter backlash. We will probably get unemployment insurance extension because Congress will decide to play it safe .

Whatever happened to the days of LBJ, when the president sent his VP Humphrey out with orders to get Civil Rights legislation passed through Congress no matter what? When he was willing to spend all his political capital taking care of Americans?

BTW, LBJ got Medicare passed. That was the true health care revolution. Obama could have extended Medicare to everyone. That would have been a real accomplishment. Instead, he has promised health insurers all the (government subsidized) business they could ever want. Zero political risk and a great campaign line. And I am still seeing people in the clinic who have been laid off from their jobs and who have no health insurance and who can barely feed their families much less pay for their blood pressure and diabetes medicines. These folks need help now. They are dying now. Their problems will not be solved with health insurance that they will not be able to afford to use due to high deductibles and out of pocket expenses.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Drunken Irishman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-10 02:54 AM
Response to Reply #46
47. As it should be his slogan...
Edited on Wed Jul-21-10 02:58 AM by Drunken Irishman
And why many progressives like Howard Dean, Bernie Sanders and a great deal of others supported it in the end (even, gasp, Kucinich!)

You ask what happened to the days of LBJ? Johnson's medicare was, believe it or not, a compromise. It wasn't true universal reform, was it?

Civil Rights? Also a compromise. Talk to a great deal of blacks in that era and you'll hear a tale about how civil rights only inched us in the right direction. It was also only passed because most Republicans supported it. Had it not been for Republicans, it would've failed because Democrats, specifically Southern Democrats, opposed civil rights legislation.

Imagine that. Republicans being the key to passing such a monumental legislation.

That wasn't the case this time around. No, instead of fighting just Republicans, Obama had to fight Democrats.

Had LBJ faced a united Republican front in either his medicare or civil rights fight, neither even come close to passing.

Even then, what we got had to be added to later.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SeattleGirl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-10 03:00 AM
Response to Reply #46
49. Why don't you just come out and flat out say that you hate
Obama?

You can couch it in a million words, but your meaning is quite clear.

You don't like the man.

In fact, I would say you despise him.

Fine.

That's your right.

Just stop trying to ride around on your high horse, acting like you are oh so much better than Obama and those of us who support him.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pattmarty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-10 07:34 AM
Response to Reply #49
89. Well, you just SAID if for "us", didn't you? NOBODY here said.........
.........they hate Obama. The majority here like Obama. What they hate is the opportunity he was given and actually what little he has done with it. The whole country was behind him after the election and had "hope" for the "change" he promised in his campaign. After Nov 2 his chances of passing ANYTHING will be severely curtailed, so he just blew his first two years. I know, you will come back with "oh no", he passed a great healthcare "reform" bill and a great financial "reform" bill, but take a close at both those so called accomplishments and there's not much there for "us peons".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
quiet.american Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-10 09:56 AM
Response to Reply #46
107. Stop the propaganda. What you fought so hard against is exactly what HCR provides.
Edited on Wed Jul-21-10 10:04 AM by quiet.american
Edited for clarification:

What so many here fought against, the opportunity for people to not be abused by insurance companies and to have access to healthcare has been accomplished.

The votes were *not there* for single-payer - that's the fact.

Sanders and Wyden inserted language into the bill that will allow states to pursue single-payer - that's also a fact.

Howard Dean came around and said he was proud of the President for championing this bill.

And on that note, during the HCR debate, Dean repeatedly referred to the fact that he had all children in Vermont covered as a result of his healthcare reform initiative there. That's great, but what about the adults? If Dean couldn't accomplish that in a small state like Vermont, he really didn't have a leg to stand on as far as I was concerned in criticizing Obama/Congress for trying to get it done on a national level.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hekate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-10 02:56 AM
Response to Reply #35
48. Wish I could KnR for DI's post!
:fistbump:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SeattleGirl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-10 03:04 AM
Response to Reply #48
50. Same here!
:fistbump:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bobbie Jo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-10 12:21 PM
Response to Reply #48
118. Absolutely!
:applause:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sabrina 1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-10 03:10 AM
Response to Reply #35
51. He didn't pass health care reform. He strengthened the for-profit
corrupt, predatory Private Insurance Corps' control over the health and well-being of U.S. citizens.

He's done some good things, let's not keep up the pretense that this HIR Bill was one of them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SeattleGirl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-10 03:14 AM
Response to Reply #51
52. Do you want to say that to the people who are now benefitting
from the health care bill, and the ones who will in the future?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Better Today Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-10 03:23 AM
Response to Reply #52
57. Sure I'll be happy to say it to the insurance corps, no problem.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SeattleGirl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-10 03:31 AM
Response to Reply #57
60. Nice sidestep there. I didn't ask if you would be willing to say
that to the insurance companies.

I asked if you would be willing to say it to the PEOPLE who are benefiting from the health care reform bill.

Still waiting......
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sabrina 1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-10 03:35 AM
Response to Reply #52
61. The people who will benefit the most from this bill are
the Private Insurance Corps who will never change their ways, and started before the ink was dry on the Bill, looking for loopholes to increase their profits. They will not change.

Some ordinary people will benefit, but a lot more would have benefited if this WH had fought for at least a PO. What an opportunity lost. And please, don't bother with the 'but he didn't have the votes'. This President gets the votes for things he feels strongly about. It took only 50 votes to get Bernanke confirmed eg. A man who should have been tossed as soon as the Inauguration was over.

As I said, he has done some good things, this is not one of them. It was an opportunity of a lifetime, with popular support across the political spectrum for an extension of Medicare or a PO. But the people didn't have lobbyists with big bags of money in DC, so instead of catering to the wishes of the people, the failing Private Insurance Corps were bailed out and handed a windfall.

Let's hope it gets fixed, and that means if necessary, adding a PO and eventually relegating the Private Ins. business to where they belong. Which is NOT being responsible for the health care of Americans, hundreds of thousands of whom died under their 'care'.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Drunken Irishman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-10 03:43 AM
Response to Reply #61
67. Actually, I'll benefit for it a lot...
Specifically by the end of the year when I'm allowed to go on my parent's healthcare. My job doesn't offer great healthcare and being on theirs will help me greatly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sabrina 1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-10 04:12 AM
Response to Reply #67
72. That's nice, I'll be fine too.
And some Private Insurance Corps will profit from both of us. I am not in favor of rewarding corrupt corporations, even when it benefits me personally.

You would have been fine, and so would I, had Democrats fought for a PO and we would not have been forced to provide profits to the private insurance industry.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Drunken Irishman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-10 04:21 AM
Response to Reply #72
73. But I wouldn't have been fine had Obama just said FUCK IT
And failed at getting anything through like every president before him.

Perfect? No.

A huuuuuuuuuuuge improvement? FUCK YEAH
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-10 06:40 AM
Response to Reply #73
82. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator.
 
pattmarty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-10 07:39 AM
Response to Reply #73
90. LBJ passed the ONLY actual reform to our healthcare system.........
.........Have another drink, on me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Drunken Irishman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-10 02:54 PM
Response to Reply #90
134. Try again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
POAS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-10 07:45 AM
Response to Reply #72
91. Please explain your logic that
by going on his parents insurance the Corporations will profit.

He already is on a policy that someone is paying for but as he said the benefits are poor. His parents are also insured with a better policy that he has and are either paying family plan rates or slightly less for a couple with no dependents. When he goes on his parents plan he will drop his coverage and go onto his parents. His insurance company will lose his premium and may get a slight increase in premium from his parents and he will also get better benefits.

So less money into the insurance company coffers and better benefits for the insured. That sure sounds like a bonanza for the corporations to me!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-10 07:57 AM
Response to Reply #91
94. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator.
 
POAS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-10 08:12 AM
Response to Reply #94
98. my question was specific
to that posters real world example of how he will benefit from the HCR.

I made no generalized claim and your vitriol is way out of line.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
girl gone mad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-10 08:08 PM
Response to Reply #67
144. But for how long?
You will still be kicked off shortly.

I think most people in their 20s aren't going to be happy about being forced to carry insurance at all times. I did some rough calculations and figured out I saved over $80,000 over ten years after dropping my worthless policy and paying out of pocket.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
thetonka Donating Member (192 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-10 02:50 PM
Response to Reply #52
132. Say it to my Brother In Law
Who has now burned through all of his insurance, is not illegible for any public programs, is going to have to declare Bankruptcy, and STILL has not got the pace maker that the DOCTORS say he needs to save his life.

Funny how before this Health Insurance Reform bill passed he was not in this situation. Funny how the "leadership" said this reform bill HAD to be passed NOW to save people NOW, yet he is now in this situation AFTER the reform was passed. Funny how the majority of my friends received notices that their insurance premiums are going up, some DRAMATICALLY, since the reform was passed.

Meanwhile my wife, son and I enjoy our non-profit Health Care System that is providing us with excellent Health Care, and our premium barely went up at all.

Health Insurance is NOT Health Care, and as long as you keep thinking this you will NEVER improve Health Care. And no I do not think Health Insurance run by OUR government is any better than Private Health Insurance. Neither Profit or Politics should have ANY influence over Health Care.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Drunken Irishman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-10 03:41 AM
Response to Reply #51
66. No pretense. Most mainstream progressives agree with my assertion.
And the history books will, as well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kahuna Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-10 09:08 AM
Response to Reply #51
105. The HCR bill isn't perfect by any stretch of the imagination. But imagine what
could be accomplished to strengthen it if we elected even MORE Democrats to congress, instead of pouting about what isn't perfect. If we elect MORE Dems, we will then have a mandate to improve HCR, and the votes to do it.

I'm really surprised that more so-called Democrats don't get that. :shrug: It isn't rocket science.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheKentuckian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-10 11:34 AM
Response to Reply #105
116. Yup, if we elect eleventy brazillion then we'll show them pukes, by golly!!!
But we'll have to hold them a few cycles and remember to compromise as to watch out for backlash and such.

With gerrymandering and two Senators per state too many more is more like a generational effort rather than an immediate way to address todays issues.

What we have are the largest majorities in decades with a once in a generation political talent and are hugely pissing it away playing post-partisan and blowing "stakeholders", reliving a misunderstood battle from almost twenty years ago.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CTLawGuy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-22-10 05:28 AM
Response to Reply #51
147. I think Bernie Sanders and Russ Feingold
disagree with that assessment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-10 03:30 AM
Response to Reply #35
59. Good that some bothers putting into perspective
useless trash ass propaganda.

Some will eat up the words of the OP...
cause for them, no news is good news...
cause they probably don't really give a shit
about anything happening other than how they feel
in any given minute of any given hour of any given day...
Obama hasn't solved everything in 18 months,
so he must not be worth shit...
oh yeah....and his administration is not allowed to make any mistakes....
cause he's supposed to be perfect...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JTFrog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-10 05:13 AM
Response to Reply #35
79. K&R this post!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JNelson6563 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-10 06:59 AM
Response to Reply #35
83. Well played sir.
:toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HughMoran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-10 08:06 AM
Response to Reply #35
97. And the row of Stramen fall like dominoes. Excellent post.
I love it that we're being fed spin as bad as Faux "News" would feed us by people who are just as determined to kick our Democratic President to the curb.

This thread is disingenuous at best, at worst - I'm not permitted to say.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SidDithers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-10 08:37 AM
Response to Reply #35
103. Very good post...
you've shredded the OP. :thumbsup:

Sid
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NJmaverick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-10 10:04 AM
Response to Reply #35
108. This response is superior to the original OP
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
quiet.american Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-10 10:06 AM
Response to Reply #35
109. Excellent. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SoxFan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-10 10:48 AM
Response to Reply #35
112. Well said
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cherchez la Femme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-10 03:15 AM
Response to Original message
54. Safe. As Salon.com
Edited on Wed Jul-21-10 03:17 AM by Cherchez la Femme
(I believe, can't now find the link) said, Obama didn't come out in favor of extending unemployment insurance until it WAS Safe -- until 70-plus percent of the U.S. population were polled in favor of extending benefits!

What's that you say? 70-plus percent of the U.S. population was also in favor of Single Payer Health Insurance?

Well sure, but then no big corporations stand to make billions & billions off gov't run unemployment insurance, in fact not one single penny, do they?


As anyone who's been paying attention would say: QED

:cry:


edit: Typo, as usual :(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Better Today Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-10 03:25 AM
Response to Reply #54
58. There's another term for that kind of safe,... chickenshit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-10 03:35 AM
Response to Reply #58
62. What kind of safe.......?
Edited on Wed Jul-21-10 03:36 AM by FrenchieCat
Getting shit done? Cause that's whats happening,
and for those that only live in the moment to criticize,
they'll have to read about the progress we made in this era via history books.
Till then, keep talking shit, and maybe you'll get into the history books too,
as part of the crowd that left the President right after election day,
and sat around and typed shit into a computer about nothing but debunkable
shit, day after day.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-10 03:38 AM
Response to Reply #62
63. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator.
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-10 03:51 AM
Response to Reply #63
69. I'm not a man.....
So I don't need wet dreams....

But that just goes to show how simple folks can be,
but only when they want to be.

Everyone here should understands politics
and everyone here should know that it ain't easy....
so I'm not sure why folks pretend that it is,
Cause to normal folks, that's some dumb shit right there.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cherchez la Femme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-10 03:51 AM
Response to Reply #58
70. My thoughts exactly
...can't quite see what Ignored had to say, but whoever it was it appeared s/he didn't go against her/his usual (based on why I most often put people on ignore) wont... :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cherchez la Femme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-10 03:40 AM
Response to Reply #54
65. I was wrong
http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2010/07/19/...

It wasn't a Poll, it was a safe super-majority of 60 votes.


Biiig f'in diff, n'est pas? :mad: :banghead:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vaberella Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-10 08:38 AM
Response to Reply #65
104. It's "n'est-ce pas?" n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cherchez la Femme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-10 01:59 PM
Response to Reply #104
124. Oh god yes!
Edited on Wed Jul-21-10 02:20 PM by Cherchez la Femme
Wow, it's sure been a looooong time since high school french!

Thanks for the correction! :wave:

edit: strange, but this post doesn't show up in My DU's list of recent comments
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cherchez la Femme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-10 04:38 AM
Response to Reply #54
75. Self-delete
Edited on Wed Jul-21-10 04:41 AM by Cherchez la Femme
Tired, need sleep, sorry.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madrchsod Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-10 03:44 AM
Response to Original message
68. you forgot his Afghanistan war policy.....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-10 03:54 AM
Response to Reply #68
71. I'm sure that's being saved for a rainy day......
Can't just drop the load all at once.
Got to hold something back!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cornermouse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-10 05:54 AM
Response to Original message
80. No guts, no glory.
Which is why he's in so much trouble today.

k & r
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NJmaverick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-10 10:15 AM
Response to Reply #80
110. In my opinion, I would say in real world the President is not in trouble today
Edited on Wed Jul-21-10 10:32 AM by NJmaverick
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LWolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-10 10:35 AM
Response to Original message
111. Blood in the water.
I notice that GD :P regulars have begun patrolling GD more persistently in recent weeks. Probably for the very concern your thread suggests.

I have to say that I'm really confused about Obama's thinking, when it comes to re-election.

I know he said something once about it being better to be a one-term president, etc..

If there is a big re-election machine/campaign, he must want to be re-elected. But...where are those votes going to come from? He has been systematically antagonizing group after group who should be a base of support.

Meanwhile trying to create partnerships with those who oppose him at every step, call him a socialist, call his very citizenship into question, and who, no matter how he "reaches out" to them, tossing his own voting base under the bus in the process, will never vote for him.

Is he assuming that none of that matters? That if he steps up the eloquent, emotion-triggering, "inspirational" speeches, it won't matter what he's actually done, or what he actually does?

Does he think voters are that stupid? Are they?

Or is it something else?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
glitch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-10 06:38 PM
Response to Reply #111
137. He's aiming for the legendary illusive non-batshit crazy disaffected former republicans.
Edited on Wed Jul-21-10 06:40 PM by glitch
Internal polling may show they exist. One thing for sure, the Republican Party has lost some of its registered voters. But I know a few, and they don't like the corporatists and the wall street bailouts (and revolving door) any more than we do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
girl gone mad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-10 08:12 PM
Response to Reply #111
146. If he runs, it's going to be an interesting election.
He'll have to defend his record this time, he can't just hide behind a brilliant marketing campaign.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tierra_y_Libertad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-10 10:50 AM
Response to Original message
113. Triangulation redux. K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dionysus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-10 10:55 AM
Response to Original message
114. nice campaign against obama you have going here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
asdjrocky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-10 11:35 AM
Response to Original message
117. Nope.
None for me thanks, fear goes right to my gut.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tavalon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-10 12:55 PM
Response to Original message
119. Clintonian
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Q3JR4 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-10 02:02 PM
Response to Original message
125. He had a mandate that hasn't been seen before in my
lifetime.

If his administration (and the rest of the dems) had taken the time to stand up to the parasites that are infecting this country they might not be looking at heavy losses going into the next election cycle.

Right now obama's reelection prospects in two years seem to be hanging on whether or not the republicans run someone super crazy or just moderately so.

I don't know about you, but that's just sad.

Change we could hope for? Nope, just more of the same...

Q3JR4.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
meow mix Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-10 02:13 PM
Response to Original message
127. "hope" is already replaced with fearful threats of rightwing rule
people do it here constantly.

just goes to show how things have gone...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jwirr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-10 02:38 PM
Response to Original message
131. K & R - And that is just what we will get if we do not help him get a
better majority in the houses. Nothing could be worse than riding this ship down with a repug/teabagger at the helm.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
McCamy Taylor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-10 04:16 PM
Response to Reply #131
136. Exactly. See my latest journal about how LBJ and FDR got fillibuster proof Senate majorities.
They did it by mobilizing working class voters, by telling them that they had the power to change what was wrong with the country. There is no reason that we have to be worrying about losing the House, when we could be planning to sweep the Senate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
glitch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-10 06:46 PM
Response to Reply #136
139. Work for more Progressives in Congress, period.
Worry about 2012 in a year (maybe even and a half).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProudToBeBlueInRhody Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-10 06:52 PM
Response to Original message
140. I said it before, I'll say it again
Obama will get re-elected, just like Bill Clinton did in 1996, unless we go into a depression. He'll take his lumps in the midterm like Bill did in '94, and how he handles it will make all the difference.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AnnieBW Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-10 07:44 PM
Response to Original message
141. Okay, who is going to primary Obama?
Hillary? Not likely. She's happy where she is. Heck, she's probably happy that she doesn't have to deal with the economic mess that Bush dumped in Obama's lap.

Kucinich? He couldn't catch on the first time.

Kerry? Not likely.

Feingold? He's fighting a tough battle for reelection?

Franken? Not likely.

Dean? He'd be the most likely to run in a primary against Obama, but it would split the Party. He doesn't want to do that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ncteechur Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-10 08:08 PM
Response to Original message
145. I like President Obama. I support President Obama. I will vote for President Obama again.
You can vote or not vote. I don't care.

You can vote for Nader or Kucinich or whoever the freak you want to. You can post all the bullshit you want.

You can like him or not. You can support him or not.

So rant on my fellow DUer. Rant on.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IDemo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-22-10 06:03 AM
Response to Original message
149. I think the only thing that will get him re-elected
is the divisive (and highly entertaining) convention battle between the R party leadership and the Palinites.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun Mar 24th 2019, 04:17 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC