Damn it, Mr. President. With all due respect, be a DEMOCRAT...

[YvonneCa]

...please. I am all for uniting the country...but that is different from bi-partisanship for the sake of bi-partisanship.

I, for one am GLAD you focused on policy when you were elected. I voted for you to do just that. I don't agree with you on every policy (education comes to mind ;) ) but I give you credit for being intelligent, more informed and knowledgeable on most issues than I. But I didn't vote for you to implement Republican policies. If I had wanted that, I would have voted for GWB and McCain/Palin.

Be a DEMOCRAT...PLEASE.

[stray cat]

1. or at least your kind of democrat

[ima_sinnic]

30. oh? what is the OP's "kind of democrat"?

so your kind is all republican-enabling and stuff?

[Clio the Leo]

2. As that's clearly what voters wanted this election...

.... MORE Democrats in Congress.

[polichick]

3. Except many didn't vote because Dems didn't act like Dems. nt

[Clio the Leo]

5. citation?

(IF DISAPPROVE) Do you disapprove because you think Obama's policies and actions since he became
president have been too liberal, or because you think his policies and actions have not been liberal
enough?

Disapprove, too liberal: 48%
Disapprove, not liberal enough: 9%


https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/images/11/15/rel16a.pdf

[polichick]

7. You're using a CNN poll?? LOL - all you have to do is ask a bunch of Dems...

...in your town why they didn't bother to go to the polls.

[Clio the Leo]

8. Do you have polling that shows otherwise?

... it's a rainy day and I'd rather not roam the streets ATM.

If it was 40 or even 30 percent you might have a point that CNN is an outlier ..... but the fact that the poll shows Obama polling HIGHER than average (compared to other polls) but with THAT start throw in. It's telling.

[polichick]

10. Even when polls are done well, the questions determine the response...

If you want to know why Dems didn't go to the polls, you have to ask "Why didn't you go to the polls?"

I see enough Dems of all ages to know the answer by now.

[jeff47]

9. Exit polling tells you who voted and why.

It does nothing to tell you why 29M people stayed home on election day.

[YvonneCa]

11. Exactly. Look at California...

...for example. Dems defeated Meg and elected Jerry. We defeated Carly and re-elected Boxer. We took down an education reform State Supt. candidate in June(Romero) and elected one with CTA support(Torlakson) on November 2nd.

I am sure it is not as simplistic as this, but...

1. The Latino vote turned out for Dems (thanks Meg and Carly)

2. Prop 19 (marijuana) brought out the youth vote (maybe some were for Obama in 2008)

3. Educators...were they a factor? I don't know...but they will be in 2012 if education reform is an issue. Bet on it.

[Mass]

13. MA too. our candidates were standing up for democratic values.

Democrats won all across the board, because they turned the minority votes, candidates stood for Democratic values, and they got people to vote (and we had a candidate for governor who seemed to care and not just going through an intellectual exercise).

We even defeated one measure to cut the sales tax by 2 and a measure to cancel affordable housing. And this is the same state that elected Scott Brown less than one month ago.

I have nothing for bipartisanship to reach a goal, but the government must not keep the goal in sight, and fight for it, rather than continually going back to bipartisanship for the sake of bipartisanship.

[YvonneCa]

15. I guess our states came out better...

...than many others in this election. It must feel horrible to live in a state that elected Republicans across the board. I just hope our Dems are looking at this carefully and learn the right lessons. Heck, in California, we even defeated Prop 23 which was big oil's attempt to stop California's environmental policy. Al Gore would be proud. :7

Democratic values, caring authentic candidates, energized latino vote, strong GOTV ... Adds up to a win. And it didn't hurt that Meg and Carly were so obnoxious... ;)

[donco6]

24. Colorado, too.

We beat a teabagger Governor, beat another one for Senator, and defeated all kinds of whacko RW amendments.

[YvonneCa]

26. Isn't it great when it goes well in your own...

...state? Congratulations to you, donco6, and to your fellow Coloradans (?). I really feel bad for people who saw big Democratic Party losses, though. :hi:

[YvonneCa]

16. True. n/t

[Mass]

4. K&R.

[Dinger]

6. I'd Love For Him To KICK SOME ASS!

Instead of kissing r ass. He might like it.:)

[ProSense]

12. The President is right to make this about Republicans, but

that doesn't mean it is.

Nancy Pelosi has a significant majority in the House, but that includes more than 50 blue dogs. That has always been the case, and everyone saw how the health care vote went.

House Republicans have no say in the tax cuts vote.

It comes down to getting 20 blue dogs to support the middle-class tax cuts.

They should just be allowed to expire.

[YvonneCa]

14. Prosense, I understand what you are saying...

...I think :)...about the difficulty Dems face and the difficulty in the House, and the difficulty on this one issue. On tax cuts, you may be right if what you are saying is that it is impossible. On other issues, the balance will also make things difficult. But if they are just 'allowed to expire' it weakens Democrats. It makes it seems as if we didn't care enough to fight for our beliefs. So did we not really believe what we said as Dems...or do we not care?

I am just saying...broadly, on issues Dems care about...FIGHT for them. I am tired of the 'giveaways' to the Republicans for the sake of bi-partisanship. It allows the GOP to define us...and I don't like their definition. It does not represent who I am as a Dem...and I don't think I am alone here.

[ProSense]

17. "I am tired of the 'giveaways' to the Republicans for the sake of bi-partisanship."

I don't agree that there have been giveaways just for the sake of bipartisanship.


The simulus required Republican votes.

The public option failed because of Democrats.

Wall Street reform required Republican votes.

Democrats had to compromise to pass unemployment. That dragged out for seven votes.

What would have happened if Democrats hadn't compromised? By the seventh vote, people were beginning to turn their outrage on Democrats.

On the tax cuts, I'm in favor of them expiring, even if it means a straight vote on the middle-class tax cuts fails. The need to extend the tax cuts, unlike the need the stimulus, is not critical.

There are times fighting to lose makes sense, and there are times when it's simply destructive.

When you hear the attacks on health care reform from people who are suffering under the system, it puts 1994 in perspective. Losing the health care battle in 1994 only prolonged suffering.

[ima_sinnic]

32. "the public option failed because of Democrats"

can you provide some little blue links to Obama actually FIGHTING for a public option?
I mean, giving lots of speeches about it, a rapid-ready response team to quickly dispel teabagger distortions of "socialized medicine," maybe a great speech like the one he gave re Rev. Wright, spelling out exactly what "socialized medicine" means (as in Medicare) and how that related to a public option -- you could do that for us, right?
It would clear up some misconceptions, that "the public option failed because of Democrats." I've wonmdered why, when Max Baucus threw out the drs and nurses, President Obama never stood up and said, hey, I said EVERYBODY would have a seat at the table. In fact, he wasn't around that whole summer to say squat about a "public optiopn." I wonder if you have a link explaining THAT?
When it became apparent that Baucus was NOT going to consider a public option, why didn't President Obama start making his case and reading the riot act?

I mean, with about 3/4 (well, 2/3 by conservative estimate) of Americans wanting a basic Medicare-type thing, there is something very VERY wrong if an outstandlingly popular president with a Democratic majority and the entire goodwill of the country and the whole world behind him couldn't get that done.

Don't tell me "the public option failed because of Democrats," implying, what? Ben Nelson prevented the entire country from having what the great majority wanted? Which specific "Democrats" are you talking about, anyway?

Because, actually, it did become quite obvious that certain major-league democrats did indeed make sure there would be no public option (without telling us first).

And then they wonder why people don't want to vote for democrats anymore :rofl:

[ProudDad]

20. And the way the game is played is..

ya' tells the blue-dogs that "if you want that bridge in your district, or that construction project for your brother-in-law then you'll vote for A,B,C -- if not, then it's been good knowing you 'cause you ain't gonna get that pork for your district and you'll be history next election."

Of course, the big joke is that most of those blue-dogs were toast anyway!!! Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!!!

I agree wholeheartedly with you that the "bush tax cuts' should ALL be allowed to expire...

(see, the new rules are working already :) )

[whistler162]

18. He is, but I guess that he failed your litmus test

of who is an acceptable Democrat!

[YvonneCa]

21. No. If I had a test, Obama would have passed with...

...flying colors.

[ProudDad]

19. Oh, he is...he is... (n/t)

[RayStar]

22. YES

I hope he reads this.

[YvonneCa]

23. Thanks. He's probably a bit too...

...busy, though. :7

[Rosa Luxemburg]

25. Democrats don't need Republicans, why did they bother with them?

the people need to be protected from right wingers who have the big corps at heart and not the people.

[YvonneCa]

27. I think they just really believe in unity and trying to...

...unite the country by bringing the parties together. I agree with that, too, in principle. But...at some point...the writing is on the wall.

[Phx_Dem]

28. Yeah, be like all the other chickenshit Democrats who ran away

from all the good things you did in your short 2 years. Or be like all the asshole Democrats who sit around thinking of ways to criticize their own party so they will be seen as weak and ineffective even though they've accomplished more good things in the past two years than they have probably my entire lifetime.

Be like James Carville, Jane Hamsher and spend your days bitching and whinig. Or be like Ben Nelson or Blanche Lincoln to obstruct your own party and make sure nothing gets done. Or you could be bombastic like Alan Grayson to make sure you never get relected. Or you can be like any number of progressives who think they should be able to shove their policies down everyone else's throat even though their a small minority in a big country.

On second thought, don't. Just be exactly who you are. You're doing a great job!

[ima_sinnic]

33. I'm just curious ...

does so much hatred eat you up at night?

[blm]

29. kandr

.

[YvonneCa]

31. Thank you ! And...

...:hi: