Fair Weather Dems will be the Death of Us Yet

Fair Weather Dems will be the Death of Us Yet

By Ramona on Fri, 05/18/2012 - 8:57am | Politics

When November 6 rolls around, American voters will have only three meaningful choices in the presidential election: We can vote for Barack Obama, we can vote for Mitt Romney, or we can opt out of voting for a president altogether. There will be other presidential candidates on the ballot but there's not a snowball's chance they'll win. If we choose to vote for anyone other than Obama or Romney, it'll have the same effect as not voting at all. That's the reality--that's the way it is.

We can say we're voting our conscience by voting against the two top contenders, but that's the kind of satisfaction that's filling but fleeting. It's here and then it's gone. One of those two is going to win, and we will have to live with the voters' choice for the next four years.

In a conversation the other day, someone--an admitted Democrat and progressive--said it had to be Romney, simply because Obama needed to learn a hard lesson. He has failed us so completely he doesn't deserve another term. (What wasn't said but could be seen hanging in the air were two words guaranteed to settle any argument of that measure: "So there.")

This person went on to ask, how much worse could it be with Romney as president, anyway? And mightn't it be better for us in 2016 if the Dems aren't rewarded this time for their transgressions? (Reminder: Democrat/progressive speaking.)

While the others involved in the conversation wouldn't necessarily go quite that far, they leaped on the bandwagon careening toward "Screw Obama and the Democrats." Boy, were they mad! They were so mad they completely forgot that screwing the Democrats meant essentially screwing themselves. Pointing that out to them only added to their anger. They were already screwed, and it was all Obama's fault. And it was all the Democrats' fault. And they will be made to pay.

I'll skip the rest of the conversation, except to add that there was some talk of giving up being a Democrat until 2016, when the opportunity to elect real progressives might present itself. (In other words, they'll be Democrats when and if being a Democrat is cool again, but don't expect them to do anything to make that happen.)

To this dedicated, lifetime Democrat (yes, I've talked about this before) that's like saying they'll give up being an American until America comes to its senses. Being a member of a major political party--one with power and clout and the potential ability to make real societal change--is not a part-time, fair weather pastime; it's a privilege and an obligation. It requires commitment and hard work. It requires a studious analysis of past and present performance in order to understand our role in strengthening our platform and choosing our stable of potential leaders.

It requires that we honor the heroes of our party and work to keep the fruits of their hard labor relevant, sustained and not in vain. It requires that we vet our candidates, draw out the very best, and support them to the hilt.

As Democrats we've signed on to stand firm against our enemies--the enemies of the people--and form a coalition that can't be broken. It's the only way we can fight against the privateers and build our country back again. So we work to maintain our party and when our leaders disappoint us or go against what our party stands for (not unheard of, sorry to say), we're required to set them straight. We never let up. We make them act like Democrats.

What we don't do is pick up our toys and go home. And we sure as hell don't work against our elected leaders and help the other guys win.

(Cross-posted at Ramona's Voices)

Topics:

Politics

Comments

Sounds like 2000 redux Mona. The same shit was said that year too, which was enraging, and yet there are folks who haven't learned the lesson yet. Why? I just don't know.

I would like to know why it is so many people are so angry with the President, but so unwilling to take steps themselves to make any changes in the country. I mean, come on, if you want change you have to work for it too, it can't just be the President, cause one person can't do it on their own. But most people seem to think their vote was enough and since change didn't come fast enough with their one vote, they are willing to sink the country further into debt, another war, this time with Iran, more money to the top .01% and no access to college for the vast majority of people in the nation. They don't seem to care if there is a real return to the Gilded Age.

But I tend to walk away from these conversations both IRL and virtually, it isn't worth the argument. Most folks who argue this way have already made up their minds and are so filled with negative propaganda there is no changing their minds.

Okay, no more venting from me but thanks for giving me a spot to vent!

by tmccarthy0 on Fri, 05/18/2012 - 9:38am

Teri, I hear you. I'll avoid those conversations, too, unless the person I'm talking to claims to be a Democrat. We lost our strength as the party for the people and caused needless harm to so many who needed us because we couldn't build the kind of massive loyal coalition it takes to win against the more powerful monied interests.

We lost our way after Reagan's popularity caused massive inferiority complexes among the Democrats who began to doubt their own story.

We allowed "liberal" to become a dirty word and we decided, as a party, that we couldn't win without compromising, even though we knew the other side was dead set on destroying us.

We allowed the word "Democrat" to be usurped by Blue Dogs and DIMOs who ultimately disavowed our history and watered down our entire message.

Now we're coming alive again with the help of union activists and populist movements, and if we don't take advantage of their help we'll lose more than just a party, we'll lose what's left of our democracy.

by Ramona on Fri, 05/18/2012 - 12:21pm

I think it's because Americans of all stripes don't like politics.

And we don't really have a 365 day politics.

We have elections, which we gear up for.

We party. We vote. We go back to sleep, thinking we've done our bit.

We imagine we've given our elected leaders "their orders," and we expect them to do what we told them to do (whatever that was).

KGB captured it perfectly when he said we should think of a president as a burger flipper we've hired to flip burgers.

Delegating the task of running the country should leave us free to pursue careers, take care of family, write books, and start businesses.

We don't want to have to keep attending to the country. We want to attend to ourselves.

by Peter Schwartz on Fri, 05/18/2012 - 11:29pm

"if you don't care about politics, politics will care about you"

In my humble, honest, half-baked or horrendous opinion, deciding to vote depends on whether you feel there is a way forward with the democratic-looking oligarchy we have. If you feel that there must be a collapse, or a revolution, and some sort of restart, then sure, don't bother voting. But the haves are reacting to tough times by working hard to give themselves even more, and all those billions have to come from somewhere, so don't necessarily expect to maintain your personal status quo while you wait for that progressive candidate.

I think there will be some sort of restart, but in the meantime, the Dems look a bit better for the middle class than the Reps.

by Donal on Fri, 05/18/2012 - 10:01am

You could be right, Donal. I just don't see how we'll benefit from a collapse that might or might not create a rebirth. Every repressive government on the planet got that way because they figured out how to take advantage of foment and an eventual collapse.

We have a party in place whose roots are populist already. Why start over when we Democrats only need to regroup and take our party back? It's an absolute lie that every Democrat in government is either clueless or corrupt. There are still plenty of unsung heroes among them. We need to exploit their resources and their talents and get to work building a party formidable enough to take on the monied interests.

We can't do it as long as the pretenders are busy knocking us down instead of working with us.

by Ramona on Fri, 05/18/2012 - 12:33pm

I feel your pain.

The thing is...... NOTHING IS GOING TO CHANGE

America lost its way long ago.

America belongs to the plutocracy.

Assad in Syria talks of reform, but the people are still under his control

Mubarrack of Egypt, talked of reform, and he had to be forcibly removed.

You can appease yourself, thinking those in power really care about you.

The only time they care, is when they want your vote.

America is for the the Crooked Capitalists, it's their's to lose; the peasants lost a long time ago; after FDR's death and J McCarthy initiated the direction of American policy.

America leans right, because those in power assure it.

by Resistance on Fri, 05/18/2012 - 10:17am

Thank you, Resistance. I can't hear that song without getting all blubbery.

But you're wrong about where the power lies. It lies with us, if only we choose to use it wisely. If we give up, we've lost by default. If we fight, we have a chance of winning.

If the country leans right, it's because we let it. Now we need to shift it back. We can't do that alone.

by Ramona on Fri, 05/18/2012 - 4:29pm

I suggest that the next time any puts forth the carping and blather about President Obama or for that matter, any other elected government official, we ask:

1. What have you done to achieve a better result?

2. What facts are you basing your conclusion on?

3. What would, could you in reality, have done differently to obtain, in your mind, a better outcome?

Most, in my experience,who whine about and disparage President Obama's record, know few of the facts and engage in little or no active role to promote positive changes. These 'voters' will always have the government they deserve and enjoy using for their punching bag instead of acknowledging their role in 'all that's wrong'.

This person went on to ask, how much worse could it be with Romney as president, anyway?

Let them ask that of the working poor, the homeless and hungry, disabled veterans, the sick and dying who can't afford medical care and all those who are becoming increasingly disenfranchised by the GOP. The list is endless......

But, how about we make a list (based on factual data) of what will be 'worse' for all to deliver when this type of ignorance is spewed?

by Aunt Sam on Fri, 05/18/2012 - 10:49am

Let them ask that of the working poor, the homeless and hungry, disabled veterans, the sick and dying…

You left out women, who make up 50.8% of our populace. Not only are they affected more significantly by affordability of medical care, there's also the whole question of who will be on the Supreme Court and how that will affect issues of reproductive rights in general. (I have no fear that my right to use a condom or Viagra will be preserved, however.)

by Verified Atheist on Fri, 05/18/2012 - 11:01am

all those who are becoming increasingly disenfranchised by the GOP. The list is endless......

I didn't leave 'us' out - there are too many 'clusters' to single out = blacks, Latinos, all ethnic groups other than the white, wealthy, 'blue eyed' males and non Christian bible thumping, pompous, arrogant warmongers are in certain danger of becoming the equivalent of road kill within our legislative body and their actions if Romney and the GOP prevail.

by Aunt Sam on Fri, 05/18/2012 - 1:23pm

Oh, I really only meant that as an "Amen, preach it", while pointing out that women are the only "minority" that's actually a majority.

by Verified Atheist on Mon, 05/21/2012 - 8:08am

Very good points. This is so obvious.

by Peter Schwartz on Fri, 05/18/2012 - 11:22pm

Promises of change lulled us into accepting the chains.

Obama was the pressure relief valve, in service to the banker class .

The republicans went after PBS, because that was the democrats lines of communications.

What did Obama do, to secure an advantage for the Democrats in the battle?

Yeah right, he let Democratic homeowners lose millions. Millions that could have been invested to help elect candidates WE THE PEOPLE need.

Obama allowed his base, to suffer financial ruin.

by Resistance on Fri, 05/18/2012 - 11:38pm

And Resistance, your voice (there are many spouting this nonsense these days) is the counterpart to the Militia groups and end-of-the-world groups on the right. The extremists on both sides. Always spouting off about revolution and conspiracy. You are good at posting your songs (and you should REALLY listen to "Abraham, Martin and John" I don't think you understand the song's meaning. But I will post lyrics that you should listen to again and again.

http://www.lyricsdepot.com/the-beatles/revolution.html

"When you talk destruction . . ."

"You tell me it's the institution
Well, you know
You better free you mind instead"

by John Duncan (not verified) on Sat, 05/19/2012 - 3:08am

Mona, with all due respect, you've set up a straw man here, or maybe should I saw straw child. Among the regulars at dag who oppose Obama, I don't know any who are threatening to withhold their vote in order to "screw Obama" out of pure pique. Whether or not you agree with their logic, they have repeatedly offered reasoned arguments that you've unfairly dismissed as infantilism. If you hope to persuade people to vote for Obama, misrepresenting and belittling their arguments is probably not the most effective way to do it.

by Michael Wolraich on Fri, 05/18/2012 - 11:50am

Genghis, are you saying there aren't people out there who claim to be Democrats but are willing to throw Obama under the bus in order to teach the Dems a lesson?

Believe me, there are. They're everywhere. They're saying it loud and clear and it needs to be addressed. The division among Democrats/liberals/progressives is a destructive force we can't afford, especially in an election year.

Sorry, but I'm not seeing a straw man here.

by Ramona on Fri, 05/18/2012 - 12:50pm

I think Genghis was thinking that you were suggesting that a significant number of dagbloggers hold that view. (I can only think of one, personally.)

by Verified Atheist on Fri, 05/18/2012 - 12:52pm

This is a post I wrote for my own blog and I've cross-posted it here. It will be seen in other places, too. This is a problem that is becoming universal. It's certainly not limited to dagblog.

by Ramona on Fri, 05/18/2012 - 1:18pm

The dagblog folks are a good deal smarter than your average voter, if I may so, but I still say you've got yourself a straw man--and that you won't persuade anyone to vote for Obama this way.

by Michael Wolraich on Fri, 05/18/2012 - 4:31pm

Right.

by Ramona on Fri, 05/18/2012 - 5:25pm

Now that's not fair…

Don't blame us for that!

by Verified Atheist on Fri, 05/18/2012 - 5:27pm

But event the Iron Bolt is not refusing to vote for Obama out of spite. He believes that Bush, Obama, and Romney are more less the same ("Bushbamney"), and that the country's only hope is some kind of left-wing/libertarian third party.

I think he's completely wrong, but his argument is much more considered and coherent than the "tantrum" position you've presented above.

by Michael Wolraich on Sat, 05/19/2012 - 11:59am

And the pictures are nice, too. In a considered sort of way.

I'm not going to defend my post to you anymore. If it offends you, pull it.

by Ramona on Sat, 05/19/2012 - 5:23pm

Absolutely. Pull it.

by kyle flynn on Sat, 05/19/2012 - 5:57pm

Pull my finger instead.

It'll produce about the same result.

by Qnonymous (not verified) on Sat, 05/19/2012 - 6:48pm

No getting huffy. Just because I criticize your post, it doesn't mean that I want to take it down or that I don't appreciate you publishing it. I disagree with half the stuff on the home page. Challenging people's arguments is part of the pleasure of blogging.

PS It's actually extremely difficult to offend me--though quite easy to annoy me. But I don't think you've ever annoyed me.

by Michael Wolraich on Sun, 05/20/2012 - 2:31am

He believes that Bush, Obama, and Romney are more less the same ("Bushbamney"), and that the country's only hope is some kind of left-wing/libertarian third party.

He says that's what he believes, but I believe that his beliefs are close to what has been posted here. He feels betrayed by Obama, and out of spite is unwilling to vote for him again.

Another semi-regular (I assume you know who I'm talking about) talks frequently about "punishing" Obama or "not rewarding" him with a second term. Doesn't that sound like spite to you?

by Verified Atheist on Mon, 05/21/2012 - 8:12am

I'm not going to speculate about the motives of dagbloggers, but I'm sure that there are people whose opposition to Obama is motivated by a sense of betrayal or spite or other emotional factor. But first of all, we're all motivated at some level by emotions. The more important question, when it comes to debating this stuff, is whether we have a cogent argument to back it up. Secondly, to dismiss arguments because of assumptions about the emotional motivations of the speaker is a logical fallacy.

PS As for the Mr. Bolt, I don't imagine that he ever supported Obama. He seems like a pretty hard core left-libertarian. Not that it matters in the discussion.

by Michael Wolraich on Mon, 05/21/2012 - 10:00pm

Not entirely straw. Enthusiasm counts. Just showing up at the polls doesn't cut it in a close race. And if "you" don't have real enthusiasm, then you fake it until you do.

Once the task is accomplished, you figure out your next move...

But saying Obama sucks, is a Republican, is a conservative, I'm not giving him any money, I won't make a call...but SURE I'm going to vote for the guy, whaddya think? is sort of the silliest way to make sure your vote doesn't count the way it needs to.

Why bother voting then? Either you think it's important he win, or you don't. But this sort of fence straddling is silly. One hand is giving while the other is taking away. You're hurting your own vote.

by Peter Schwartz on Fri, 05/18/2012 - 11:52pm

Ghengis is one of those holier-than-thou whiners on the left. I have heard many ignorant lefties who whine because the President hasn't done everything they wanted him to. Whined because he turned out to be human. And, in the ignorance, have very much stated that they will not vote for him or they will vote for Ron Paul (the height of ignorant thinking). Your arrogant and ignorant talk of a straw man and your inaccurate statement that Ramona will not sway anyone with such talk is ludicrous. You have a right to being wrong-headed, but I and others have a right to tell you what BS you are spouting. Good article, Ramona, and you are talking about something that makes me livid. I have been naive I think, but I thought the righties were the only ignorant ones. I am so very disappointed in the left in this country. Yes, go ahead and teach the President a lesson . . . by destroying the entire country.

by John Duncan (not verified) on Sat, 05/19/2012 - 2:50am

John,

I think your comment is a perfect example of what Jesse Jackson once said in a different setting: He poignantly noted that "when you take text out of context you have pretext."

Perhaps, were I to take your text as written and nothing more, I would conclude that your disappointment with the left in this country necessarily means that you are a right-wing zealot. And, honestly, I have no idea who you are or where you come from and ultimately what you mean. In short, I have insufficient context to understand the basis for your disappointment.

Your comment reflects that you haven't read Genghis much, and that perhaps you are unaware that he is the moderator of this blog--he needs to spank us once in awhile. I would not want his job for the next 6 months before the election. But I will suggest that Genghis' comments must be placed within the context I just described.

Chill out John and tell us more about what you feel. Perhaps we'll understand where you're coming from--in proper context.

Bruce S. Levine

New York, New York

by Bruce Levine on Sat, 05/19/2012 - 9:02am

John, thank you for coming to my defense. I can appreciate and even agree with your feelings about the topic here, but I don't agree at all with your thoughts about Genghis.

He is no left-wing whiner, and he's far from ignorant. He is a generous, thoughtful moderator and the owner of dagblog. While I can and will disagree with his "strawman" characterization, I appreciate his efforts to maintain some sort of order here.

Your comments are most welcome here at dag, but I'll just ask you to lurk awhile before you make judgments about the writers here. We can get into some pretty heated discussions, but I give Genghis and Articleman much credit for trying to keep it real.

Thanks.

by Ramona on Sat, 05/19/2012 - 10:19am

John is a friend of mine, and I thank you for making him feel welcome. It's a shame that others couldn't bring themselves to be more gracious, but I suppose that's the nature of the beast.

I suppose we become too insulated here, maybe.

by LisB on Tue, 05/22/2012 - 11:35pm

"Ghengis is one of those holier-than-thou whiners on the left." - It's a shame John is an uncultured pig, but I'll try to be more gracious -

"John, I know you come from white trash beginnings, but around here, 'up yours' to the owner of the house is not considered a proper way of introducing yourself. So pull up a chair and enjoy the vittles - they ain't much in the way of taste, but they're at least filling".

See, we can all be accomodating.

by PeraclesPlease on Wed, 05/23/2012 - 12:59am

Oops. I hit "send" twice again. Sorry.

by LisB on Tue, 05/22/2012 - 11:37pm

Thank you, Mr. Duncan. Clearly, you're not familiar with dynamics here. See there are two teams: the Obamabots and the Wingnuts--what you call "holier-than-thou whiners." They like to torture each other.

I, as everyone knows, am Vice-President of the Obamabot team. As a dagblog moderator, I not only get to torture the Wingnuts with my powerful blogging skills, but I also get to erase their comments and scold them sanctimoniously, which I do as often as possible with as much bias as I can muster.

Admittedly, I stepped slightly out of character in this thread, thereby confusing a newcomer, but rest assured it's all part of my master plan to ground the Wingnuts' faces into the dirt while laughing maniacally and invading Middle Eastern countries in my spare time.

PS I'm glad that you found Ramona's piece so persuasive. I take it that you were a Wingnut until Ramona's piece persuaded you to vote for Obama?

by Michael Wolraich on Sat, 05/19/2012 - 12:20pm

GRIND. Grind the Wingnut's faces into the dirt.

Carry on.

by Ramona on Sat, 05/19/2012 - 1:20pm

No, I meant ground. It's easier to electrocute 'em when they're grounded.

by Michael Wolraich on Sat, 05/19/2012 - 5:41pm

I'd just like to vouch for Ghenghis'h ability to scold sanctimoniously.

It's like he's got a basement full of sanctimons, and they're all busy breeding.

by Qnonymous (not verified) on Sat, 05/19/2012 - 6:51pm

Hey! Who said you could take your face out the dirt?

Btw, while I know you relish your qnonymity, your comments would avoid the spam filter if you logged in.

by Michael Wolraich on Sun, 05/20/2012 - 2:13am

I would add, however, there are many who come to dagblog and never comment or blog. Who knows what the lurker "smartness" is - they may be more superior than those blogging and commenting - since no one has any evidence.

by Elusive Trope on Sat, 05/19/2012 - 2:08pm

Well, Genghis is just wrong. I happen to know that there is absolutely no way that Acanuck and Quinn are going to vote for Obama this fall. The whole Canadian wing of the Party is lost to us.

by Bruce Levine on Fri, 05/18/2012 - 1:05pm

And to think we used to laugh at those provincials. Look who has the last laugh now.

by Ramona on Fri, 05/18/2012 - 1:23pm

Barack Obama is the greatest Fair Weather Democrat of them all.

I'm not interested in talking about the election, but does anybody have a strategy for retrieving the Democratic Party from the likes of Obama, the Clintons, Rubin, Emanuel, Geithner and Corzine? I hear Jamie Dimon is a Democrat too.

by Dan Kervick on Fri, 05/18/2012 - 12:12pm

And also, Lloyd Blankfein. Go figure.

by Michael Maiello on Fri, 05/18/2012 - 12:41pm

If progressives are unhappy with all those people, give me a good reason why they're not willing to work within the party to replace them with more suitable folks? How does it help to denigrate the entire Democratic Party over these current selections?

Where do they go from here if the Democratic Party isn't worth saving?

by Ramona on Fri, 05/18/2012 - 12:55pm

I think the feeling is that those guys own the Democratic Party, and that it is very difficult to come up with a viable strategy for little guys to wrest the ownership of a Goldman Sachs property away from Goldman Sachs.

by Dan Kervick on Fri, 05/18/2012 - 1:07pm

I get your point, Dan, but I can't say I totally agree with it. Goldman Sachs doesn't own our party, even though you may feel they own our leaders. The leaders are expendable. The party, if we're smart about it, will live on.

by Ramona on Fri, 05/18/2012 - 1:14pm

The leaders of our Party are expendable.

Now there is a novel thought. I think we should all consider it.

by A Guy Called LULU on Fri, 05/18/2012 - 1:21pm

I know what you're thinking, but we can do it legally--every election cycle.

by Ramona on Fri, 05/18/2012 - 1:26pm

Are you suggesting that I am thinking of an illegal solution?

by A Guy Called LULU on Fri, 05/18/2012 - 1:31pm

Lordy, lordy, NO!

by Ramona on Fri, 05/18/2012 - 2:55pm

Except Obama? He's not expendable?

When I say Goldman Sachs owns our party, I don't mean it as just an idle metaphor. Power is about wealth. The people who own the country get to say who is allowed to run for high office, whose campaigns will be funded, and what legislation will be permitted once the the candidate is elected.

Goldman Sachs basically owns the US Treasury department. Our Treasury secretaries always come directly from Goldman Sachs.

So I want to know what the strategy is. Working within the party to do what exactly?

by Dan Kervick on Fri, 05/18/2012 - 1:25pm

Every major change in this country, good or bad, came about because of actions by our elected officials. We put them in place through elections. Outside of massive protests, it's really the only way our voices can be heard. We expect them to represent us in a way that promotes the common good, and when they don't we work to replace them. The people choose the candidates, for better or for worse, and we're either rewarded with winners or stuck with losers. Ultimately our choice, though.

We would like to think that drastic change can only come by trashing both parties and starting all over again, but that's the stuff pipe dreams are made of--especially when the country is struggling through the worst recession/depression since the 1930s. We couldn't handle that kind of upheaval, and it's unlikely it would ever happen, anyway.

I'm not as convinced as you are that we're totally owned by Goldman Sachs and the like, but there's no question that their influence has harmed us immeasurably. The strategy is to work to change the trend. We've done it before and we can do it again. We've done it, not by creating a third party but by forcing our leaders to see the light. That takes huge numbers of activists, all on the same page. Now, if we could only figure out what that page is.

by Ramona on Fri, 05/18/2012 - 2:23pm

More options would be nice.

by Dan Kervick on Fri, 05/18/2012 - 3:01pm

Maybe now would be the time to come up with some. I've said what I think we should do, now it's your turn.

by Ramona on Fri, 05/18/2012 - 6:02pm

I'm already doing it.

by D Kervick (not verified) on Fri, 05/18/2012 - 8:06pm

And How, pray tell, are you doing it? Voting for a third party that, in the current climate, is just throwing away your vote? Idealism is valuable, it is productive, but it has to be tempered with reality. In the real world we are fighting for own existence. If you whine that President Obama hasn't done what you wanted him too, welcome to the real world. Romney being elected only means that the Republicans will have the upper hand to run the country into the ground, destroy Medicare and Social Security, continue a war against immigrants and women, and turn us completely into corporate wage slaves. Health Care reform WILL be repealed and corporations will be writing legislation like they did under Bush. We will move further down the road toward Theocracy. And YOU folks will have had a major hand in allowing that to happen. By punishing the President (and for what I have never known. Do you folks remember what it was like under Bush?) you are punishing ALL Americans.

by John Duncan (not verified) on Sat, 05/19/2012 - 2:58am

Protect Obama....... or else.

by Resistance on Sat, 05/19/2012 - 4:36am

Couldn't agree more.

by Peter Schwartz on Sat, 05/19/2012 - 11:22am

You don't even know what you're talking about. Save your rant for some Nadar rally.

Actually, the way I remember it was that that life under Bush was, as depressing as it is to admit, better than it is now for most Americans.

America under Obama is the most twisted and conservative and savage and unequal America that I can remember.

by Dan Kervick on Sat, 05/19/2012 - 4:54pm

Only "better" because folks were living high on the illusory value of their homes and the crisis hadn't hit. Not because the policies were better.

by Peter Schwartz on Sun, 05/20/2012 - 11:27am

Adjusted for inflation, housing was a good value.

At least with real-estate the owner had a deed of trust, not some inflated stock value.

Where the CEO and his buddies skimmed off the profits and stocks like Enron,Worldcom and Lucent plummeted.

How dare you peasants seek an investment you can live in.

You peasants should be supporting Wall Street, so the big brokerage houses upper echelon, could buy the nicer things in life.

How dare you peasants consider a home and community.

Two wars to support and the Fed churning out dollars and you blame the homeowners for trying to set up a nest egg for a retirement, we were told would not be there when we retired.

They busted housing so the folks would be forced to buy treasuries?

Treasuries to support a government on a spending binge.

by Resistance on Sun, 05/20/2012 - 12:32pm

Housing per se is a good investment, a hedge against inflation, and a place to live... in reverse order.

But housing that's 300% above normal market prices is not a good value. Nothing's a good value when it's widely inflated.

Assuming the value of your house (or any asset) is simply and always going to go up, especially the way it was going up, is dumb. It just won't. Nothing does nor ever has.

If you think X will only ever go up you are heading for a fall.

by Peter Schwartz on Sun, 05/20/2012 - 7:26pm

If you think X will only ever go up you are heading for a fall.

You better hope people still want to buy the worthless paper, the Fed produces.

Fall? You haven't seen fall yet?

Gold for a can of corn?

by Resistance on Sun, 05/20/2012 - 10:32pm

I'm not dissing real estate.

Nor am I plugging for bonds and stocks.

But NO asset can increase in value, especially at that speed, forever.

That includes stocks and bonds and gold in particular.

by Peter Schwartz on Wed, 05/23/2012 - 7:53am

Retrieving the party?

What are you even talking about?

Do you think the party was more successful before the Clintons?

We couldn't get arrested in the 1980s. We had one blip in the 1970s. In the 1960s, we started well, but crashed and burned.

It's not as if Jimmy Carter, Walter Mondale, and Dukakis were blazing liberals of the stripe we might imagine. They weren't FDRs.

We did control the rhetoric, however, until the mid-1970s and hung on to Congress in the 1980s, but we were just hanging on.

But really from the mid-1970s on, we were hanging on to old--emphasis old--glory.

by Peter Schwartz on Fri, 05/18/2012 - 11:19pm

I love this kind of angst.

by Dan Kervick on Sat, 05/19/2012 - 4:48pm

Dan, you've opened my eyes to so many interesting things (truly), I hope you can accept my poor gift of angst in recompense...as a token of my appreciation.

by Peter Schwartz on Sat, 05/19/2012 - 6:40pm

I can't think of a time when we Democrats ever had fair weather, Ramona.

I also think that Romney can do a lot of damage in 4-8 years, so it's not worth the risk. But here's one other thing:

I kind of have to laugh when I hear somebody say that defeating Obama now will teach the Democrats the lesson that they should deliver us a real progressive candidate next time. That isn't a lesson that the party is even open to learning.

If Obama loses, the party will "learn," that he lost for being too liberal. We will read endless "left wing" columns by Thomas Friedman and Richard Cohen about how Obama went too far on health care, not far enough on cutting the debt and "entitlements" and thus lost the White House for another generation of Democrats.

Frankly, after an Obama loss, the Democratic party would be more likely to nominate Olympia Snowe, Ben Nelson or Joe Lieberman to run against Romney than it would a true progressive voice. Because to the Democrats runnng the party, progressives cost them elections, they don't win them.

by Michael Maiello on Fri, 05/18/2012 - 12:41pm

This about sums it up on the aftermath of an Obama defeat.

The question becomes, and this would be related to the question Dan K asks above, to what extent is it possible for the progressive Democrats to become the ones running the party, instead of the ones who don't want to learn the correct lesson?

by Elusive Trope on Fri, 05/18/2012 - 1:02pm

Progressives are steadily gaining a public voice after a very long silence. The question is, where can they go to best serve the people? My answer, of course, is the Democratic party. The infrastructure is in place and there's no question that they're still one of only two major parties in this country. Why not work on taking it over instead of destroying it?

by Ramona on Fri, 05/18/2012 - 1:09pm

Why not work on taking it over instead of destroying it?

That's exactly what the plutocracy has done to democracy; to both the democrats (r) and the Republicans (R)

They run the two parties, to make it appear as though, there is a competition, so you think you have a choice.

It keeps the masses contained, within the frame set by those in power.

Eugene Debs told us that, over 100 years ago.

Did the democrats authorize the use of military force in Iraq?

Did Bauchus control who came before his committee when healthcare was being deliberated?

Under the Obama administration, have the abuses of Bush, in regards to domestic spying continued?

YES is not always a good thing.

"YES WE CAN" was a sales gimmick it's obvious to the non- blind who know "NO WE CANT

(with Obama at the helm OF THE PARTY; a party leadership that would not primary THEIR choice)

HERES YOUR CHOICE PEASANTS

We the people, get to help decide the little issues but the big important ones, belong to the plutocracy.

Reality check .............We have the best government, ~~money~~ monied interests can buy.

Hope you can believe in;......

Heres a riddle

Which party is the best?

Keep hoping. HaHaHaHa

by Resistance on Fri, 05/18/2012 - 3:16pm

And how are you going to hope to elect a third-party without the alternative vote?

by Verified Atheist on Fri, 05/18/2012 - 3:19pm

Your dreaming again.

If ever there would be, an alternative; rest assured, the plutocracy would control it too.

♫ Has anybody seen, my old friend Bobbie ♫

♫ How about John or Martin? ♫

by Resistance on Fri, 05/18/2012 - 3:27pm

If there never will be an alternative, then aren't you dreaming as well? What exactly are you suggesting? Giving up? Not bothering? What a rallying cry!

by Verified Atheist on Fri, 05/18/2012 - 3:32pm

You looking for a rallying cry?

Our forefathers had one but the stupid people that followed, failed to preserve the freedom that was given.

We were warned about the spirit of party.

The plutocracy will reap what the monarchy did, except those in power now have new tools.

Revolution is coming, no doubt about it.

The sea is restless,

"Let your kingdom come"

This current one is corrupt and no amount of whitewash will charge the fact, the foundation is ruined.

by Resistance on Fri, 05/18/2012 - 3:50pm

"Let your kingdom come"

So… do nothing but wait for destruction/revolution? (Not much of a rallying cry.) As usual, I feel like we're speaking two different languages…

by Verified Atheist on Fri, 05/18/2012 - 3:53pm

The original was, "Out of stock, your order will ship as soon as we receive new inventory."

by Michael Maiello on Fri, 05/18/2012 - 4:00pm

We are.

As respecting the secular governments,

After exhausting all peaceful channels; some Americans were overheard saying give me "Liberty or give me death"

Todays naive voter say's, " give us another democrat and things will change "

The Tea Party is at the door.

The Tea Party doesn't want peace; they want to overthrow the ruined United States.

Obama can you lead us, in a chorus of kumbyjah?

As for the do nothing comment.........HIDE ..... "get out of her my people" for she is heading for the abyss.

Thanks to Obama, the banker class has some protection, not so for the second and third class citizens WHO WILL FIGHT ONE ANOTHER FOR THE CRUMBS.

Wasted 4 years, so give him another 4 more?

by Resistance on Fri, 05/18/2012 - 4:17pm

Credits Thomas Cole

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

The Course of Empire paintings is Byron's Childe Harold's Pilgrimage (1812–18). Cole quoted this verse, from Canto IV,

There is the moral of all human tales;
'Tis but the same rehearsal of the past.
First freedom and then Glory - when that fails,
Wealth, vice, corruption - barbarism at last.
And History, with all her volumes vast,
Hath but one page...

by Resistance on Fri, 05/18/2012 - 4:37pm

That painting, Destruction by Thomas Cole (#4 of a 5-painting set titled The Course of Empire) does not depict a revolution but a mythical empire city being sacked by enemy warriors. It's basically an argument for the right-wing hawk's view, i.e., once you get big, don't get lazy with the defense budget thinking no one can touch you.

by artappraiser on Fri, 05/18/2012 - 7:02pm

They're gone, Resistance. We can honor them by working toward fulfilling their goals.

by Ramona on Fri, 05/18/2012 - 6:04pm

Progressives need to capture what I call the "common wisdom."

Right now, the common wisdom tells people that our debt is dangerously high and it is foolish to spend more money. Unless we "have" to.

It tells people they are spending good money on "lay-a-bouts" who feel entitled and don't want to work while they go to work every day.

When they hear the number 15 trillion, they think of their own credit card debt and how could we possibly EVER pay back an amount like that.

The notion of a "debt bomb" makes sense to them at a basic level. The idea of "just printing" more money to keep spending doesn't make sense to them at this same basic level.

Ramona, I'm specifically not arguing for these ideas as true. What I'm saying is that this rhetoric--these concepts--make sense to people based on their own experience.

Progressives need to replace these concepts and ones like them with others that also make sense at a basic level but tell a different story. This is what I mean by capturing the "common wisdom" or controlling the rhetoric.

by Peter Schwartz on Sun, 05/20/2012 - 11:33am

Destor, it probably won't come as any surprise that I'm about as liberal as they come. I'm also a Democrat. I don't want to destroy my party; I want my party to live up to my expectations. It won't happen if I walk away or join the other side by going on the attack against it. It will happen if I work hard to seek out and support liberal Democrats.

I believe my party is worth saving. I've seen what good we can do when we put our hearts to it, and I also think, looking around, we're our last best hope. I believe it's worth the effort to try. If others don't, that's fine. I just ask them to stop calling themselves Democrats

by Ramona on Fri, 05/18/2012 - 1:02pm

What are you calling on Barack Obama to do Ramona?

by Dan Kervick on Fri, 05/18/2012 - 1:12pm

I'm calling on him to do the right thing for an ailing country. The difference is, I'm doing it from the inside. And the difference is, while I'm not blindly in love with him, I don't see him as pure evil, either.

He reacts to reaction, and I'm counting on working with huge numbers of activists all over the country to get him to see the light.

What are you doing?

by Ramona on Fri, 05/18/2012 - 2:53pm

You didn't really answer my question. Everyone wants the President to do the right thing, whatever that is.

It seems to me there is a conflict between Obama and tens of millions of frustrated people who voted for him. You're calling on the tens of millions to suck it up and move in his direction. What are you calling on Obama to do to repair the rift and cross the gap?

What am I doing? I'm trying to scare Democrats and their leaders. I'm signaling my disapproval of their direction by declining to give them money or volunteer time. I write critical articles. If they think they have everyone's vote in the bag, they won't change anything.

Mostly though, I don't bother thinking that much about the election and try to spend my time on more important things. I'm pretty sure the same two guys will be running when I look up again the first week of November. I don't see the need for all the talk between now and then.

by Dan Kervick on Fri, 05/18/2012 - 3:14pm

Hey Dan,

It seems to me that you have the same problem that Ramona has. Neither of our "sides" in this continuing debate among Democrats has realistic answers in my view. And I use two "sides" for the sake of this discussion; I know there are any number of sides [as I have ended up alluding to below.]

Your answer is expressing displeasure by scaring Democrats by withholding money, etc., but you also correctly (almost correctly) note elsewhere in this comment section that the politicians in both parties are controlled by the Goldman Sachs' of the world. In short, we can all write and spend or not spend what we choose to, but in the end your answer doesn't seem to be any different than Ramona's or mine. I'm frustrated and stumped--in particular, on the economy I just cannot understand why the president has not pushed harder for the kind of stimulus package we need to restore our infrastructure and, at the same time, get the economy going and put people to work.

To me, the most important thing in the short-term is that Romeny not be elected. That is a necessary condition for progress. It is absolutely not sufficient. A GOP victory in November will be a disaster for whatever is left of our frayed safety net, for whatever chance there is of building roads and bridges and putting our brothers and sisters back to work, and yes, as boring as it is, for the composition of the federal judiciary--from the district courts right up to the Supreme Court.

To me it is that simple. I guess the only arguments that I do not respect on the merits are: (1) that it does not matter who wins in November; and (2) that maybe it's better to get Romney in there because things will get so bad that we'll elect a progressive person who we can be proud of. I don't think you have asserted either, but both of those arguments trouble me.

Love the picture of the man behind the brilliant and compelling prose by the way.

Best,

Bruce

by Bruce Levine on Fri, 05/18/2012 - 3:39pm

Bruce,

I think your way is the only way to approach this election. We have a lot of things to work out on our side, but time is not going to stop for us. Romney looms. If he wins, he gets four years to tip the balance of the Supreme Court, solidify the conservative hold on the federal court system and to implement something like the Ryan budget, which could include major cuts to Social Security and Medicare to anyone under 50 right now (which, because it's future pain, means it's something that people might let happen).

Romney might also blunder us into another war, while cutting taxes. He will also likely not stand in the way of Republican extremists in the house trying to get a conservative social agenda passed. DOMA will remain the defended law of the land, so there will be no civil rights progress for at least four years of a Romney presidency and, if the economy treats him well, maybe 8.

We could be crushed by a Romney presidency. Really crushed. If you think about it, it's just math. We will have held the White House for just four years out of the first 16 of the new century, and perhaps only four out of the first 20. That fact alone should prove to anyone that with a Romney victory, the Republicans will have had ample enough time to remake the country to resemble whatever fantasy is in their 50s coiffed heads.

by Michael Maiello on Fri, 05/18/2012 - 3:58pm

Thanks Destor, I'm afraid it's the only response to a good question about why the president deserves re-election.

by Bruce Levine on Fri, 05/18/2012 - 4:08pm

I think the best way to approach the election is to read some good books, turn off the television, turn of the NY Times, turn off the Washington Post, turn off the political parties and stop playing the ruling class game of fear and intimidation.

by Dan Kervick on Fri, 05/18/2012 - 4:15pm

Moreover, the narrative will be that America rejected liberalism (or worse), which will make it even harder for a progressive to follow.

It is ONLY in small enclaves like this one that Obama isn't considered a liberal, but somehow a conservative or a middle of the roader.

Getting hung up on personal disappointment around what Obama coulda, woulda, shoulda done is narcissistic and country-sabotaging.

This whole thing is not about "us" and our big fat disappointments.

It is much more about the mother who needs health care and can't get it. It's much more about the gay person who can't get married or gets thrown out of the military. It's much more about holding Wall Street to at least some accountability, instead of none.

If you don't care about getting none instead of some, then continue to wallow in "your" disappointment.

by Peter Schwartz on Fri, 05/18/2012 - 11:40pm

I'm frustrated and stumped--in particular, on the economy I just cannot understand why the president has not pushed harder for the kind of stimulus package we need to restore our infrastructure and, at the same time, get the economy going and put people to work.

I'm frustrated, but I'm not stumped. He just doesn't believe in that kind of thing. He's a conservative. Anyway, 8+ % unemployment is no big deal as long as the gliterati laugh at your jokes at the WH Correspondents' dinner. What's not to like? Life is great.

by Dan Kervick on Fri, 05/18/2012 - 4:11pm

Obama: "did everyone get a piece of cake"

by Resistance on Fri, 05/18/2012 - 4:20pm

And, of course, 8 percent unemployment doesn't account for the discouraged worker effect or the change from good paying jobs with benefits to low wage, zero benefits part-time employment.

by Bruce Levine on Fri, 05/18/2012 - 4:36pm

I won't try to scare Democrats, I'll try to rally the more liberal ones to get out and protest against any action that hurts instead of helps the 50% of the 99% who are getting nowhere except behind.

How do you strengthen people by scaring them? Does that put food on the table? Money in their pockets? Aren't you falling right in line with the Republicans and their billionaire backers, who have fright and intimidation down to a science?

So you don't bother to think about the election but you spend a great amount of time trying to scare voters into. . .what? Voting Republican? Voting for a candidate who can't and won't win?

You might want to look at how the Republicans have handled themselves in the past few months, especially on issues involving women's rights, civil rights, states rights and safety nets for the poor and elderly and then let's see you come back and huff and puff about how nothing will change because Obama is Obama and that's all there is to it.

Man, what a plan.

by Ramona on Fri, 05/18/2012 - 6:23pm

I'll try to rally the more liberal ones to get out and protest against any action that hurts instead of helps the 50% of the 99% who are getting nowhere except behind.

Democratic pols don't seem much affected or intimidated by protests against Republicans.

I won't try to scare Democrats...

How about we encourage the Democrats and give them hope by showing them a way to proactively work to improve their situation. They can do that by scaring the Democratic pols by convincing them that if they do not listen to us and act on our behalf that we will vote for someone who will. Don't protest the Republicans and their policies alone, protest the Democrats who kowtow to Republicans and vote like Republicans. Make them believe thy will be replaced one way or the other. It has worked for the Tea Party. That is beyond obvious.

by A Guy Called LULU on Fri, 05/18/2012 - 6:58pm

Lulu, I have no problem with trying to scare our Dem leaders into doing what they're supposed to do. (I thought I made that clear.) I do have a problem with trying to scare Democratic voters out of voting for Democrats. All that does is convince them that a) it doesn't matter which side they vote for, they're all corrupt bastards, or b) nobody cares what they think so why bother?

Either way, we've lost them. I want the Democrats to win and I want the people in the Democratic Party to hold their leaders' feet to the fire until they do what they have to do to turn things around.

If the Republicans win and take the majority any chance of a Democrat making a difference is gone.

by Ramona on Fri, 05/18/2012 - 7:14pm

We have, broadly the same goals and the same fear of the Republicans, but recent history convinces me that, while Republicans might be a fast trip to hell, the Democrats will only take a bit longer to get us there. I simply do not see any other way to scare Democrat pols into doing right except to convince them they will lose the next election if they don't. How do you suggest that we hold their feet to the fire? By campaigning double hard for the ones who are on shaky ground because they have rightfully lost support of so many Democratic voters and can be expected to act the same going forward so long as we do too? We all know the definition of crazy.

It's Friday evening, I'm going a little crazy. By the time I comment again, if I do tonight, I may be drunk and boisterous. Apologies in advance if I am even less diplomatic that usual. .

by A Guy Called LULU on Fri, 05/18/2012 - 8:15pm

I want to scare the leadership.

by D Kervick (not verified) on Fri, 05/18/2012 - 8:03pm

It seems to me there is a conflict between Obama and tens of millions of frustrated people who voted for him.

The problem is there are tens of millions of people who are NOT frustrated with him.

And it isn't as if he can or should only listen to the people who have a problem with him. Right?

The only way this can work is if MORE people, many more people, are on our side of the fence.

And then, of course, there are the tens of millions of folks who are just trying to kill him off...

by Peter Schwartz on Fri, 05/18/2012 - 11:11pm

Well, those happy folks can enjoy their Obama party.

by Dan Kervick on Sat, 05/19/2012 - 4:43pm

True, but we can't hope to have our party without respect to those people, IMHO. Especially if they're the only ones partying.

by Peter Schwartz on Sun, 05/20/2012 - 11:42am

You shouldn't even have to say "I don't want to destroy my party," Ramona. We're kind of in a bind, election-wise and we have been my entire life. The real problem is that a two party system is insufficient for representing the multitude of ideas and priorities held by the American public. Believe me, Republicans are having the same conversation we are, and they've been having that conversation for a long time as well.

The polite newspaper commentators love the idea that liberals like us and conservatives like Ron Paul supporters are shunted to the margins of the debate. They think that everything serious happens in the gloopy "middle." Never mind that the people in the middle don't represent anything like the center of American thought, if that can even be defined.

It is your party, Ramona. But it's being run by the people who paid for it. I don't know if it can be pried out of their hands. We can continue to vote for progressive candidates in primaries. Beyond that, I'm not sure what to do.

by Michael Maiello on Fri, 05/18/2012 - 1:13pm

The key is in the numbers of voters we can move over to our side. We've managed to convince voters that they have no real voice, so why bother? Consequently, millions of potential voters stay away from the polls. Both parties are only as good as their voters. Not exactly encouraging, but you're right; the primaries are where the really important decisions need to be made.

by Ramona on Fri, 05/18/2012 - 2:47pm

The "primary problem" needs to be looked at more.

People do complain about not having enough choices.

But they're also apathetic until the final stretch of the final race.

How to solve this?

by Peter Schwartz on Sun, 05/20/2012 - 11:44am

Sometimes it's hard to be a woman
Giving all your love to just one man
You'll have bad times
And he'll have good times
Doin things that you don't understand
But if you love him
You'll forgive him
Even though he's hard to understand
And if you love him
Oh, be proud of him
Cause after all he's just a man

Stand by your man
Give him two arms to cling to
And something warm to come to
when nights are cold and lonely

Stand by your man
And show the world you love him
Keep giving all the love you can
Stand by your man

Stand by your man
And show the world you love him
Keep giving all the love you can
Stand by your man

by Dan Kervick on Fri, 05/18/2012 - 12:58pm

And you stand by yours, Dan. Whoever that might be.

by Ramona on Fri, 05/18/2012 - 1:03pm

I have always liked a good political cartoon and that is a great one.

Go Dan!

by A Guy Called LULU on Fri, 05/18/2012 - 1:03pm

I recently recommended a link to a hard core Conservative who apparently thinks that our country's foreign policy is an issue that overrides others. He was of the opinion that anti-war Republicans should hope that Obama wins. His reason was certainly not that Obama was a 'good' choice, but that he was the lesser of two evils. He thought that Romney would likely be even more stupidly aggressive but also pointed out that that was only speculation about future events compared to the fact of Obama's actual record of actions. He thought that Obama's horrendous foreign policy would become more apparent over the following four years and during that time Conservatives could work towards advancing some candidates for all levels of government who would see the stupid futility of trying to dominate the entire planet. He honestly pointed out that there was no good Republican alternative to Romney at this time.
We all may disagree on what we think are the most important issues but it seems fair to consider that the ones most talked about are the ones most important to the talker. I am amused, when I am not offended, by the deafening silence on some of these issues from many of the same people who were so ardent about throwing Bush into prison for some of his actions which were 'destroying the country' but now ignore or defend Obama for doing so many of the same things and in some cases doing worse. Apparently, electing Obama, no matter what, is the most important thing to some and they worry that criticizing any of his actions, no matter how bad, is somehow being a traitor, or at least stupid, for anyone who ever called themselves a Democrat. We shouldn't ask the candidate of 'change' to actually change anything.
Anyway, that link is still up at the In The News section under Good sense From a Conservative. The speaker represents his view much better than I can and so I recommend again that it be listened to. While nobody owes me any response or needs comment on their opinion of his piece if they don't feel like it, my curiosity would be satisfied if anyone who does listen to it would merely say that they did.

by A Guy Called LULU on Fri, 05/18/2012 - 1:18pm

I know you've heard this argument a zillion times, Lulu... but I'd rather have Obam picking federal and supreme court judges for four years than hand that power back over to the Republicans, who have already stacked the benches. One more conservative Supreme Court Justice and we're toast for generations.

by Michael Maiello on Fri, 05/18/2012 - 1:53pm

I have heard it and I agree that who appoints judges is a major concern. It may be the biggest concern in which the choice between Romney and Obama is significant.

You have probably heard my position many times but I will repeat a version of it now. I do not want Romney to win the Presidency. That said, I do not want Obama to continue to preside the way he has.

Trying to make Obama and/or the Democratic Party change will entail some risk. I think almost everybody will agree that the Tea Party has pushed the Republican Party in the direction that they want it to go, just not far enough yet for them. In the process they have cost some more moderate Republicans to lose elections but the ones who have so far survived have moved to accommodate the Tea Party's wishes and they fight harder then the Democrats. American politics as a whole, measured by its results, has moved to the right. Liberals have accomplished less than zero as far as I can see. That makes me conclude that the Tea Party's tactics are more affective and the only current example I see of how to effectively push a sides chosen politicians to represent their views. Speak up about what you see as wrong.

I choose to continue to speak up about where I think the Democrats are wrong. I don't expect to change the world with my continued bucking of the tide which carries my sides votes, but if enough people who twelve through four years ago said they agreed with my views would now say so, it might move the Democratic Party in the direction I think we all would like to see it go. It seems worth a try.

by A Guy Called LULU on Fri, 05/18/2012 - 2:59pm

We should keep speaking up, for sure. We should also support primary candidates who better represent our views, when they challenge entrenched officeholders. Those are two things that the Tea Partiers did effectively. But, we have to face that for whatever reasons of taste or psychology, their message plays better with the general public. Not, of course, the crazy birther stuff. That turns people off. But it's not difficult to sell people a story like, "you work hard, you're very special and have achieved a lot and things would be so much better if the government stopped taking from you." It's a flattering story. What's our flattering story about America?

by Michael Maiello on Fri, 05/18/2012 - 4:51pm

The difficult question for me is, what do you do when there's a primary candidate who represents your view better but who you think is less likely to win in the general? I don't think the answer to that question is trivial, and I think it depends on a lot of the unspecified parameters in the question.

by Verified Atheist on Fri, 05/18/2012 - 4:54pm

I agree, sometimes the numbers game overrides other priorities. When it becomes a numbers racket the decisions get even tougher.

by A Guy Called LULU on Fri, 05/18/2012 - 5:29pm

I agree with both of you, obviously. It's tough. Here's my deal:

Vote your conscience in that case.

If the majority of the party agrees with you, then you all share in the risks and you go for it,

If the majority thinks you're nuts, you lose in the primary, hold your nose (but continue to complain) and vote for the nominee.

That's how the Tea Party operates, and they win a few and lose some, too.

by Michael Maiello on Fri, 05/18/2012 - 8:59pm

We've moved to a quasi-parliamentary system, so I think it's important to vote for the party if it's just a matter of one person "better representing" your views than another. Having more Ds is critical these days, especially when all the Rs move as one.

Obviously, I wouldn't vote for a scoundrel.

by Peter Schwartz on Sat, 05/19/2012 - 12:59pm

Oh, I agree with you 100% with regards to the general election (I was going to say I mostly agree with you, and then I re-read your last sentence). My point was about the primary election, however.

For a very real example, consider if we were talking about Kucinich versus Obama in 2008, but knowing what you now know about Obama, and assuming that Kucinich wouldn't pivot to the center just as much as Obama if he had won the election (which in his case I think is a valid assumption). Consider also that nominating Kucinich as the Democrat would've made a McCain victory much more likely (an assumption which I think is also likely true). Knowing what you know now, would you vote for Kucinich or Obama in the 2008 primary? Even in that specific case, I struggle with what the right answer is…

by Verified Atheist on Mon, 05/21/2012 - 8:24am

Kucinich couldn't even keep his own seat.

There may be reasons, and this may be unsubtle of me.

But binary decisions are blunt and cruel.

by Peter Schwartz on Mon, 05/21/2012 - 8:35am

But, we have to face that for whatever reasons of taste or psychology, their message plays better with the general public.

This is a key point and one I've been thinking about.

It seems the right wing has captured the Mom and apple pie and Puritan rhetoric that reaches down into the American psyche. That's a big advantage. They don't have to convince their listeners of the message. All they do is enter into the narrative that's already running inside their listeners' heads.

Ours is a more complex message. It is maybe best summed up by the Sermon on the Mount. The Sermon has deep resonance, too. But somewhere along the way, people feel they "tried" the Sermon and it didn't work. They feel it isn't real world, too idealistic. Would be nice.

Reagan really captured it best: Our opponents are well-meaning, but wrong. And perhaps doubly foolish or dangerous for being well-meaning and wrong.

I spend a fair amount of time talking with conservatives on Facebook. Except for those who are simply ideologically rigid, the thing that comes across to me is this:

They'd be for government spending on this, that, or the other thing IF they didn't think they were just throwing away their money. I think many are honest in this.

Once government fails to deliver (in their minds at least) then they are open to all kinds of ideology that says government can't deliver and, in fact, shouldn't be asked to deliver and enslaves when it tries to deliver. This adds a hard carapace to what I think their core complaint is.

So making government truly responsive to people's needs--making it work--is an opening for the left to recapture many who've moved to the right. Punishing Wall Street malefactors is also an area where Tea Partiers and the OWS could probably come together.

by Peter Schwartz on Sat, 05/19/2012 - 12:56pm

What has the tea party accomplished in fact?

I mean in terms of legislation.

by Peter Schwartz on Sat, 05/19/2012 - 11:26am

He thought that Obama's horrendous foreign policy would become more apparent over the following four years and during that time Conservatives could work towards advancing some candidates for all levels of government who would see the stupid futility of trying to dominate the entire planet.

Hah! I'd believe that when I see it! Still, it's nice to hear from conservatives hoping for it.

by Verified Atheist on Fri, 05/18/2012 - 1:53pm

WHY they voted democrat, (Sent to me)

When your family or friends cannot explain WHY they voted democrat, give them this list and they can pick a reason from this “TOP 12.″

12. I voted Democrat because I believe oil companies’ profits of 4% on a gallon of gas are obscene, but the government taxing the same gallon of gas at 15% isn’t.

11. I voted Democrat because I believe the government will do a better job of spending the money I earn than I would.

10. I voted Democrat because Freedom of Speech is fine as long as nobody is offended by it.

9. I voted Democrat because I’m way too irresponsible to own a gun, and I know that my local police are all I need to protect me from murderers and thieves.

8. I voted Democrat because I believe that people who can’t tell us if it will rain on Friday can tell us that the polar ice caps will melt away in ten years if I don’t start driving a Volt.

7. I voted Democrat because I’m not concerned about millions of babies being aborted so long as we keep all death row inmates alive.

6. I voted Democrat because I think illegal aliens have a right to free health care, education, and Social Security benefits, and we should take away the social security from those who paid into it.

5. I voted Democrat because I believe that business should not be allowed to make profits for themselves. They need to break even and give the rest away to the government for redistribution as the Democrats see fit.

4. I voted Democrat because I believe liberal judges need to rewrite the Constitution every few days to suit some fringe kooks who would never get their agendas past the voters.

3. I voted Democrat because I think that it’s better to pay billions to people who hate us for their oil, but not drill our own because it might upset some endangered beetle, gopher or fish.

2. I voted Democrat because while we live in the greatest, most wonderful country in the world, I was promised “HOPE AND CHANGE”.

And, finally, the No. 1 reason to vote Democrat:

1. I voted Democrat because my head is so firmly planted up my rectal cavity, it’s unlikely that I’ll ever have another point of view.

"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not." Thomas Jefferson

by Resistance on Fri, 05/18/2012 - 4:51pm

Sounds like mighty fine Right Wing blather. Spread it around, Resistance. You'll fare so much better with the Republicans.

by Ramona on Fri, 05/18/2012 - 7:19pm

When you say oil company profits, does that include the federal subsidies they pull down? I frankly don't know why you would post something so relentlessly stupid.

by Donal on Fri, 05/18/2012 - 7:30pm

"Know your enemy and know yourself and you can fight a hundred battles without disaster."

Sun Tzu

Obama better hope his pandering for the gay voters and the illegals, that want amnesty, will carry the day for him.

Black preacher at the pulpit: " Yeah, yeah, I know; all these years I told you about the enemies of god, who will attack our moral values. No, No, No, Obama is not in that camp.

Obama made more enemies than he has supporters.

Ask the millions of homeowners, did Obama rescue the bankers or did he help you?

Obama "I saved Detroit"

This one thinks he made the sun rise

by Resistance on Fri, 05/18/2012 - 8:38pm

If you wanted to go after the federal subsidies, wouldn't you have thought ,Obama would realize

"I better do it now, when I have a majority in the Senate and House, I'll need to have a revenue source for my grandiose healthcare plan, written by the insurance companies ".

"Hey Obama; the horse goes in front of the cart".

by Resistance on Fri, 05/18/2012 - 8:53pm

Seems to me anyone that posts this crap without rebuttal is my enemy.

by Donal on Sun, 05/20/2012 - 4:37pm

I don’t care to live in your America Donal,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theo_van_Gogh_(film_director)

When seeking the democratic nomination in 2008, Obama lied to the workers in Ohio and Pennsylvania, about seriously looking at NAFTA. He transformed himself into the images I provided

Maybe he should have told the folks; “my ideas about NAFTA are evolving”?

Or that his Healthcare plan would not be as he portrayed; they’re evolving too.

Now

It appears the bedrock Freedom of Speech and Expression , is no longer a principle, you'll defend Donal?

If it offends you, then we're enemies?

Refer to "Why I voted Democrat"

http://dagblog.com/politics/fair-weather-dems-will-be-death-us-yet-13771#comment-154467

10. I voted Democrat because Freedom of Speech is fine as long as nobody is offended by it.

Donal get a grip.

The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not." Thomas Jefferson

Maybe Jefferson should have added, democracy will cease to exist, if folks like Donal make enemies of those who offend him?

Readers refer to #1 reason, to explain Donals irrational behavior.

by Resistance on Sun, 05/20/2012 - 7:24pm

If you're going to post and defend Republican talking point drivel, then yes we are enemies.

by Donal on Sun, 05/20/2012 - 9:25pm

Maybe you and Aunt Sam (Ossama) could join some Talibanic type, hate group, that assassinates cartoonists, that are declared enemies, because they disagree with your positions?

by Resistance on Sun, 05/20/2012 - 10:39pm

Maybe you could get a full time job erecting straw men somewhere else.

by Donal on Mon, 05/21/2012 - 8:15am

You may call it Republican drivel, but the fact is; many Americans probably got the same email and finding the message resonates.

Attacking me, the messenger, wont solve YOUR messaging problem.

by Resistance on Sun, 05/20/2012 - 11:12pm

We'll see.

by Donal on Mon, 05/21/2012 - 8:16am

I don’t care to live in your America Donal,

I understand and can tell by your posts that you are miserable here, so I agree that it would be in your best interests to move far away. Obviously, you believe there are other countries that provide a better political climate for you and yours - someplace better in your mind.

Bon Voyage, safe journey and don't forget to surrender your US citizenship, since sure you don't want to have any further connection with this nation you seem to find to be in such a horrific condition.

by Aunt Sam on Sun, 05/20/2012 - 9:45pm

Aunt Sam, why didnt you do us all a favor, and volunteer to go to the front lines in Iraq? You want to defend those who lied us to war and kept us there.

by Resistance on Sun, 05/20/2012 - 10:35pm

why didnt you do us all a favor

And who else are you speaking for in your reply? Be very careful before you assert you are speaking for others unless you care to name them and have their permission to speak for them.

And I have never defended Bush or any in his administration who were responsible for the subterfuge and actions that were responsible for sending our troops to Iraq.

by Aunt Sam on Sun, 05/20/2012 - 11:28pm

Be very careful before you assert you are speaking for others

Oooooh be very careful!

I'm shaking Aunt Osama

I speak for those Americans, who are sick of both parties.

by Resistance on Mon, 05/21/2012 - 1:24am

I speak for those dagbloggers, who are sick of juveniles taunts. Please make your points without the personal abuse.

by Michael Wolraich on Mon, 05/21/2012 - 12:10pm

Forgive me

I lived through the time of the "Love it or leave it crowd" and the persecution that silenced dissent.

The inference from some, that I should leave, if I don't like America. That taunt hurt, and brings back to memory; Don't go there.

As Donal pointed out about rebuttals left unchallenged makes enemies of those with differing opinions.

Whether from the right or the left

Our nation suffered, because taunts of Unamerican were not challenged.

Sure; they may have only been, juvenile taunts, but it silenced those opposed to the war.

It made cowards, of the democrats, that Authorized the Use of Military Force in Iraq

by Resistance on Mon, 05/21/2012 - 1:37pm

Ah. Prick Resistance, and he does in fact bleed. Perhaps we're getting somewhere.

by Bruce Levine on Mon, 05/21/2012 - 2:07pm

Nicely done.

Perhaps we're getting somewhere.

Is there a significance of your quote by Shylock?

When you say somewhere, are you suggesting a final solution?

Now I'll just have to be more vigilant and wary of the cowardly, blood sucking, war mongering Democrats and their dupes?

by Resistance on Mon, 05/21/2012 - 2:46pm

Whatever rocks your boat.

by Bruce Levine on Mon, 05/21/2012 - 3:19pm

bslev It's my nature to be contrarian.

I mean no real harm, I love to test the mettle of others.

Jousting is fun.

I believe Ramona did us all a great favor, by posting this.

Get our differences and perspectives out there, because you know the other side will, as evidenced by the email I received and posted.

We need our own "Why I voted for Republicans" satire

One page messaging without wonkiness.

by Resistance on Mon, 05/21/2012 - 4:24pm

Aunt Sam, I apologize for not coming to your defense before this. I just saw this exchange. I'm with you all the way, and I appreciate your thoughtful comments every time you respond to anything here at dag.

I know you're tough enough to withstand attacks from people who should know better, but I just wanted you to know you're an asset here and I hope you'll continue to respond to anything that hits your buttons. ;>)

by Ramona on Mon, 05/21/2012 - 8:36am

Ah Ramona,

Thanks and back at ya!

It does get tiresome that all who only rant and spew the negativity very seldom, if ever, offer up any viable positive solutions and much less tout what they have done to help, not hinder, what should and needs to be a team effort to construct, not destruct. I'm sure you note that despite many pleas for them to offer up theirs or any proposed remedies, they don't.

I've come to the conclusion most all who do so are nothing more than pot stirrers, without credibility, who are part of the problem, not the solution. IMO, those who continue to put forth the blather are more responsible for the demise of our infrastructure than any politico. As has been proven, to only come forward with problems without proposed solutions is never productive or helpful.

Their rants quickly disintegrate and crash, as they resort to disrespect, denigration and personal attacks, which only proves they have no real interest in engaging in thoughtful, intelligent and productive discussions. Perhaps they are not able to put forth cohesive, viable proposals - therefore they resort to blather?

by Aunt Sam on Mon, 05/21/2012 - 10:31am

Yeah, that's tellin' him, Connie.

by A Guy Called LULU on Sun, 05/20/2012 - 10:36pm

Ramona.

I love the way you moderates for Obama supported him when he and his Congressional Democratic pals hired Wall Street advisors and took Wall Street money and gave us Republican policy after policy.

Yessirree Bob, THOSE Republican policies were fine.

THOSE Republican policies were moderate. Necessary.

And when Progressives shouted and howled, you all said, now now. Now now. We can't be hitting the streets, we can't be protesting, we can't be kicking this guy's ass because:

In 2009 - He's new. And we gotta see how his people & policies work.

In 2010 - We got mid-terms coming folks! No time to let slip that Democratic majority!

In 2011 - We can't do any more, we're all tapped out.

In 2012 - Shut up and get in line to vote Democrat!

But here's the thing. You and yours love to come on here with that fabulous argument about how uncivil and unloving and unthoughtful and uncourageous and disloyal progressives are who threaten to vote against these clowns... and who risk handing us over to Republican policies.... after 4 years during which you and yours have consistently supported REPUBLICAN POLICIES, just fronted by clowns who call themselves Democrats.

See, it's one thing to support a party, and be loyal to it. I get that. I do that. But you have to have some content, and some PRINCIPLES that define what that party is.

And I'd suggest to you that by pretty much any measure, the Democratic Party today is ideologically about where the Republican Party USED to stand.

I understand why one wants to see votes for Obama, but I find this sort of column to be absolutely free of any moral moorings. You cannot support Republican policies and refuse to protest them for 4 years, and then propose that people are disloyal punks when they threaten to... support Republicans and their policies.

In my books, the real Democrats have been howling in protest for 4 years, and now have to decide what to do. Not sure I heard many of you in that chorus.

by Qnonymous (not verified) on Fri, 05/18/2012 - 9:35pm

Yeah yeah yeah, it is all our fault. Pinning our hopes on other's changin'. At least we still work towards the change we want to see no matter how many others out there tell us we should just give up.

by tmccarthy0 on Fri, 05/18/2012 - 10:40pm

Amen, Teri. Now I'm going to go watch that video again.

All that effort and what did it get 'em?

Satisfaction.

by Ramona on Fri, 05/18/2012 - 10:59pm

I'll slide by the insults because it's you, Q, and ask, instead, besides voting Republican, what's your plan, man?

If the "real" Democrats have been howling in protest for four years, where is the evidence that they accomplished anything?

And what party is it that you're being loyal to? Pretty sure I missed that part.

by Ramona on Fri, 05/18/2012 - 10:47pm

You missed the part about what party I'm loyal to Ramona, because you and yours don't want to pay attention. You guys are, frankly, too arrogant to imagine there are people in the party, progressive people, who do party work and yet, disagree with you.

For example. I'm a progressive who, like many others here, has given their entire adult life to working for the causes, and the parties, that you also support. In my case, I've lived and worked across 3 countries, and that means, supporting Labour in the UK, the Democrats in the States and up here, the NDP. It's what I do, Ramona. I've only said this about 101 times. It's also what a batch of my friends do - Americans, Canadians, Brits, etc. We're party people. ;-)

But you and TMac and others blather endlessly on about how you guys are the ones who are real and loyal, and tell your stories about how "progressives" are disloyal and don't do "practical" work on the ground. I donno what to say to that after a while. But I do know it's stupid party management and communications. As though the idiocy of the Obama-Clinton fight carried on, and you all decided you could afford to rip the shit out of a whole wing of your party, for 4 years, personally, and then convince them to come back at election time!

I donno, but I can pretty much guarantee that even though I'm a spritely 50'ish, I've been intimately involved with more election campaigns than most of your stolid party "Democrats" on here. National campaigns in the 3 countries, provincial and county and state and provincial in all 3, running for, oh, 25 years solid now --- it adds up. I've made fairly heavy investments of time, ideas, etc. in Clinton, Blair, Livingstone, Layton, Doer and a batch of others.

And beyond that, yes, I even up and VOTE, ok? For guys I don't like.

But 4 years into these chats on here, and you go off, all self-righteous, and tell me you must have "missed" that part. Do you even get how arrogant that sounds? Like if I had come on and said, "Which party are you for again Ramona? I must've missed that part."

I think your attacks on those progressives who are pissed off hurts the Democrats 3 ways.

1st, they're and personally insulting. Which matters. It's not calculated outrage, it's just how people respond when others are arrogant to and ignorant about them. You and TMac and others actually assume that progressives are somehow not involved in the heavy lifting of party work. You guys actually say that out loud. And I just think that idea is... nuts. It matches nothing I know about people working in Colorado, California, Massachusetts, North Carolina, etc. As though enviros and local foodies and feminists and peaceniks and civil rights folks and gays and so on, who'd happily call themselves progressives, weren't working for the party? Do you even get how insulting that is? Maybe in your own neck of the woods, that's how it works. But I can really quite assure you that that's not the National story in the US. Lots of Progressives work for a living and they work for their party. And if you or TMac want to keep up the snide commentary to the contrary, someone should just plain tell you to go to hell. Oh wait. I just did. ;-)

2nd, your attacks are badly thought-through party politics, IMHO. Instead of siding with progressives periodically over the 4 years, trying to push Obama where pretty much anyone sane wants him to go - to his left - it feels like there's been nothing but abuse from right out of the gate. From when Obama cut off the local organizers and told the online folk to take a hike. It's felt like an endless stream of "it's not time for challenging" and "we can't possibly do more" tripe (almost wrote Trope.) But now, you want them to come join you!

Would any party worker ever, consciously, try to "cultivate" their relationships with women, or the Hispanic community, or labour or gays by saying the sorts of stuff said on here regularly? If we ran things this way up here, or in the UK, or in a major urban center, we would have no kind of coalition left at all. In 3 party systems, it's really easy for people to move over - so you have to play nice with people across a wiiiiiide spectrum. Whereas you traditional Democrats lately seem to have chosen a path of playing nice with your political enemies (the Republicans), with whom you compromise, but then beating the shit out of other groups (progressives) within the party! In my books, that's just abysmally bad politics, bad party management. And yet, you guys are all convinced you're the "experienced" and "savvy" ones.

I donno. Maybe you think it makes the Dems more attractive to Independents. I doubt it. I think a populist move to the left would have done wonders. Maybe you figure you don't need the progressives money, and they don't have many votes. In my view, they provide shitloads of local energy, and that's gonna be missed. Maybe you just think the progressive vote has no place else to go. But you know what? It's really really really hard to fake excitement, and inspiration, and belief. That is, progressives could agree to turn out down to the last man and woman to vote, and even kick in their $50, but when the heart goes out of it, people can tell. And it matters. In politics, motivation matters. Hell, maybe talking nice about gay marriage will salvage things and get them all excited again. I doubt it though.

And 3rd, this column - built around straw men, and dumb ones at that - isn't going to convince progressives to change their thinking. What it will do, is throw more gas on the intra-party fighting. It staggers me to watch column after column get posted up here that lambasts the left of the party. They bash Obama, and so you bash.... them. And honest to God, you don't even see the asymmetry there, do you? They bash a politician, and so, you bash... them. That's just an atrociously bad approach to persuading people. Maybe it's because of the ugly two-camp Clnton-Obama insult-fest, I donno. Maybe.

And then, you conclude as follows. Now listen to it through THEIR ears. "As Democrats we've signed on to stand firm against our enemies -- the enemies of the people -- and form a coalition that can't be broken. It's the only way we can fight against the privateers and build our country back again." To a progressive, it sounds like the call of a traditional Democrat, who failed to stand firm against Wall Street and the privateers over the last 4 years, but who is now claiming to want to reform that unbreakable coalition, but is doing so by writing a column attacking them as "fair weather Dems."

How in the hell do you think that works? As a persuasion piece?

by Qnonymous (not verified) on Sat, 05/19/2012 - 12:11am

Hmm. As if we didn't already know your credentials inside out and backwards. As if Ramona doesn't have her own??

As if we need more names dropped and fingers pointed.

This is so tired it's laughable.

I'm sorry, but...srsly. I'm off again. I just can't.

by LisB on Sat, 05/19/2012 - 12:28am

Oh, for chrissake, Q, listen to yourself. You've made my case perfectly, if you ask me. You want me to agree with you and if I don't it's okay for you to insult me, to lie about my motives and about what I've written in the past, and to tell me to go to hell.

You insult Democrats and the Democratic Party and then tell me you're loyal to the Democrats. You decide that the only good Democrat is a Progressive Democrat far to the left of even the lefties and then insinuate that I'm not left enough so I don't know what I'm talking about.

You make sure I know how hard you work for your causes while insulting me for caring about mine, even insinuating that I've never worked as hard as you have. You think I'm a dilettante, Q? You want to have a pissing contest and compare what we've done in our lives to further our causes?

It's not the Obama bashing that bothers me as much as the Democrat bashing. It's endless and it hurts our party in more ways than you obviously are willing to recognize.

You even go so far as to attack my plea for us to join together, as if, because I'm a "traditional Democrat" I'm not worthy enough to join ranks with your kind.

I stand by everything I wrote and what you've done here just cements the fact that there's a fracture in our party that may well destroy us if we don't work at resolving it.

by Ramona on Sat, 05/19/2012 - 1:10am

There is a fracture in the party,

Obama should have been primaried, let the democrats decide who represented their views the best.

WE were not allowed to decide for ourselves. The choice had already been made for us.

We're stuck with carrying Obamas baggage, our message is drowned out by "Protect Obama or else"

Despite his shortcomings "Protect Obama..... or else"

by Resistance on Sat, 05/19/2012 - 4:34am

There is a fracture in the party,

You are going to need to provide some real evidence of this statement in order for it to be taken seriously.

There is a fracture in the Republican Party, the fracture is apparent, it's been discussed by a variety of Republicans. But I think I would notice a party fracture, and I don't. I just see you saying how bad Democrats are and how they destroy everything, even though the entire financial debacle not only happened under George Bush but at the time the majority in both houses of congress were also held by Republicans. But in 2006 suddenly the country was just not so happy with one party rule anymore and they were really tired of George Bush and the incompetence of his administration. So Democrats took the house back in 2006 and Republicans had a kind of melt down, doubling down on their reactionary conservatism and after the 2008 election that morphed into a party hell bent on destroying everything around them in order to win the next election cycle even at the expense of all the citizens of the United States. And that completes Epistemic Closure.

by tmccarthy0 on Sat, 05/19/2012 - 9:17am

I stand by everything I wrote and what you've done here just cements the fact that there's a fracture in our party

Just FYI, the quote is from Ramona.

So I'm assuming you can't take her seriously either?

I'll enjoy the backpedal.

by Qnonymous (not verified) on Sat, 05/19/2012 - 6:03pm

It's hilarious, Ramona, that you're entirely happy to come on and insult whole sections of the Democratic party, compete with little lectures on hard work, and then play the victim when your ass gets kicked in return. Hilarious... but also kindof bizarre.

For instance #1. You wrote out a lovely little paragraph lecture for these so-called "Democrat/progressives," telling him/her/us about how real Democrats behave. I'll quote it back to you.

To this dedicated, lifetime Democrat (yes, I've talked about this before) that's like saying they'll give up being an American until America comes to its senses. Being a member of a major political party--one with power and clout and the potential ability to make real societal change--is not a part-time, fair weather pastime; it's a privilege and an obligation. It requires commitment and hard work. It requires a studious analysis of past and present performance in order to understand our role in strengthening our platform and choosing our stable of potential leaders.

Now. See the part where the words "hard work" are inserted? I've bolded them up for you. First comes "hard," and then comes "work." Also, see the headline you used? "Fair" and then "weather?" See, what you're saying is that these other folk don't work hard for the party. And that they're only there when it's "cool." And then they bugger off. And yes, TMac makes the same accusation about not working and such.

So, you threw down the "hard work" gauntlet, and I picked it up. But when I laid out some of the work people who consider themselves "progressives" have done, you do what? You go all whiny. Suddenly, I'm insulting and insinuating and wanting a pissing match. (Not likely, my pissing quality, quantity, aim and power has fallen dramatically in recent years. Just sayin'.)

Anyway, just let me say, boo the hell hoo. If you don't wanna hear about Democrat/progressives work habits, then stop bloody challenging them. If you do want to hear about them, be prepared to get your ass kicked. And BTW, instead of whining here, you could have just withdrawn the charge or admit you over generalized or whatever. It's no biggy.

For instance #2. I love the part where I go from being a Progressive to being "far to the left of even the lefties." Gee Ramona, I'm really not sure what I said up above that would result in me being labelled so. Maybe you could point it out to me?

Actually, no, you couldn't. Because it's not there.

See, in reality, the problem isn't how far far left I am, so much as it's you not being able - or perhaps willing - to ... read. Maybe you couldn't read the part where I mentioned strongly supporting Bill Clinton. Did you miss that part? Or is he a far far faaaar leftie? Then the Tony Blair support bit. Again, a far far faaaaar leftie? How about the Gary Doer bit? (I know, you don't know him. But that's ok.) He's Ambassador to the US now. Appointed by a Conservative PM. So.... not so far far faaaaaar left, actually.

So, let's be honest here. The thing about me being far far to the left of the far left's leftiest left was just.... you pulling something out of your ass to throw at people, right? Otherwise known as shit-flinging. I know, it's uncouth of me to describe it that way, but hey - it was your made- up insult, so I figure you obviously don't mind a little bullshit, eh?

For instance #3. I didn't attack your plea for coalition. What I said was that you and your allies had already broken it, over the last 4 years. See, progressives showed up last election. They voted. They gave money. They volunteered. THEY PLAYED THE GAME THE WAY MAINSTREAM TRADITIONAL DEMOCRATS SAID TO PLAY.

And then... they got the tip of Rahm's boot. They got Republicans and Wall Streeters named to cabinet, and they got their voices silenced and ignored. It's why I quoted that little plea-riff of yours - to show how it had already been completely destroyed over the previous 4 years. By the mainstream and traditional Dems. Here it is:

"As Democrats we've signed on to stand firm against our enemies -- the enemies of the people -- and form a coalition that can't be broken. It's the only way we can fight against the privateers and build our country back again.

I mean, here you are, pleading to - and I quote - FIGHT AGAINST THE PRIVATEERS, and yet, if ever there was a President and a set of Democratic Party representatives who failed to do that, it was this most recent batch.

They peddled their ass, Ramona. They whored it up. Your guys did. And now they've got Mammon and Babylon and Get Rich Quick tattooed on their peckers, Ramona. These ass-clowns did precisely nothing to straighten out Wall Street and to fix the privateers.

Which would mean it was your guys which busted the promise of the Democratic Party, Ramona. Guys who - to read your blog from 14 months ago that you linked to - "can be replaced." Except, they weren't. It was never time. Not in the eyes of the mainstream Dems, who can't even handle when their guys are "insulted." Because it just does so much "damage."

Nope, the damage is gonna come when these second-raters are tossed out on their ass because nothing about them is believable. Because their promises of hope and change are now gonna ring hollow. Because the tens of millions needing work and wanting a home feel betrayed, and start lashing around, looking for someone, anyone, to offer them help.

You jokers ran the show the way you wanted. You didn't want to do what progressives suggested, hell, you mocked 'em and cut 'em adrift. Except, thing is, the smart political move was to move left, to go populist, to GO WHERE FDR WENT, and to fight for and be seen to fight for the poor and the working class. But instead, we got the goddamn "preppy strategy" of politics - got where your shoes'll stay the cleanest.

Sorry Ramona, that's strike 3. Hard work? Swing and a miss. Far far left? Swing and a miss. The Progressives are gonna break the Democratic coalition? Sorry, you're way behind the pitch. You guys broke it long long ago. Strike 3.

by Qnonymous (not verified) on Sat, 05/19/2012 - 6:46pm

Without getting into the kerfuffle with Ramona...

I think you make some excellent points, Q. There were some key mistakes made, and it makes no sense to deny it.

by Peter Schwartz on Sun, 05/20/2012 - 11:39am

Quinn, I know you'd like to think I'm intimidated now and you really taught me a lesson. All that SHOUTING, and all. The fact is, I was gone most of the day and I just saw this.

I don't remember addressing my post directly to The Mighty Quinn. In fact, truth be told, I don't think of you much. Amazing how you've taken every word I've written and attached it to you personally, and now you've gone on the attack as if this is a war between you and me.

This is not a war at all. But there is a large progressive faction that is intent on destroying Obama and the Democrats. Since I'm one of those Democrats, that part I will take personally. They may well have legitimate reasons for their rage, many of which I totally agree with, but if they "win" by giving the Republicans the country, we will have lost everything we've worked so hard for. (WE. ALL of us. You. Me. ALL of us.)

You seem to think loud ranting is a solution, and I'm sure I haven't seen the last of it, but I'll ask this anyway: Besides blaming me and all the other "jokers" you believe are the ruination of us all, what's your idea of a solution? I've read through everything you've written here and I don't see anything that would indicate you've come up with anything that even comes close to solving the mess we're in.

We either vote for Obama and the Democrats or the Republicans win. If you've got another idea, get it out there, for God's sake. And stop wasting your time writing long treatises on what's wrong with me. I'm the least of your problems.

by Ramona on Sun, 05/20/2012 - 10:43pm

WTH, did you not read or did you forget

http://dagblog.com/politics/fair-weather-dems-will-be-death-us-yet-13771#comment-154607

The system IS irreparably ruined.

You can't put enough lipstick on this pig, called American democracy posing as American self- determination.

In reality ........American Democracy......... By and For the Corporations

Its evident, you don't think much about Q, but one has to wonder, did you even read SleepinJs response?

Third time for emphasis

http://dagblog.com/politics/fair-weather-dems-will-be-death-us-yet-13771#comment-154607

by Resistance on Sun, 05/20/2012 - 11:02pm

Holy Shit. I vote for more Quinn and less you, Ramona. And for the record, I'll vote for Obama, but I'm really, really unhappy there isn't another serious option. Furthermore, I'm not terrified of a President Romney. Sure, he'd be more awful than "our guy," but jesus, don't you ever get sick of falling back on the comparative framing? When that's all that's left it's time to reboot.

by kyle flynn on Mon, 05/21/2012 - 12:25am

Kyle, you're welcome to Quinn over me. I'll try not to cry over it. So I'll ask you the same question I asked Quinn: What are we supposed to do to get out of this mess? Specifically, now. How do we fix this?

by Ramona on Mon, 05/21/2012 - 9:32am

What are we supposed to do to get out of this mess?

Move to Canada?

The love it or leave it crowd has infiltrated the left.

Get out before the civil war.

by Resistance on Mon, 05/21/2012 - 9:57am

What to do?

Get together with other long-time Democratic Party activists and threaten to not work for him this election. Threaten to not raise money. Threaten to get others to do the same. If asked, you can say you'll still vote for him - if that's a personal fetish - but emphasize that nothing else will be forthcoming.

Unless.

Unless he meets a simple list of demands, and signs on.

The entire U.S. should have been presented with this many moons ago. And I'm sure, in fact, that people have cooked up dozens of these little manifestoes and petitions.

None the less, it is what's needed.

* It's not needed from the Occupy kids or the lefty left, because... even the people on this site find it hard to listen to them, because their hair is too long or they use the wrong word or something. But anyway, they won't be listened to.

* It's not needed from the Tea Party idiots, because... as anybody knows who actually has to live near the bastards, they tend to be the mean-spirited, selfish, hatred-filled, narrow-minded little POS's. They'll never vote for anything useful anyway. Not ever.

* And it's not needed from the Party hierarchy or any of the various "suck in the movement" cons presently out there to try and "draft that youthful Occupy energy into the Democratic Party." Because those fools haven't God's own first clue.

And why is this needed? It's needed because the Democratic Party and its Presidential candidate could easily lose this election. And they could lose it because, in an historical period which absolutely cried out for them to back the 99%, and be seen to do so, they failed. They abandoned the tens of millions who voted for hope and change, and instead, did the bidding of the rich and powerful. They cut the links and came untethered from those who had voted them in, but kept intact the golden shackles pout in place by the rich.

And so now... we're in one of those classic, awful, political choice situations. Where time has run out to create an alternative. And where the other guy is clearly the most personable mask they could find to slap upfront of the monster.

And yet, people could easily vote for the other side. You seen the polls? Romney's within reach, and we haven't even stepped on the gas. It'll be entirely easy for people stay home or wander to the his side of the tracks. And a lot will do so not driven by ideology, and not driven by the mass media, but because they have no work or are in debt or have no home, and their President is patently a self-interested tosser who has shown himself to have no deep commitments, other than to keeping his shoes clean and avoiding mud. A preppy.

Which leaves us with one chance, in such a short time-frame. To drive that man, and his advisors, and the party leadership, over to a set of positions that the American populace believes will actually do something for working people, the unemployed, the sick, those losing their homes, and those without hope.

And it will have to come from those on the edge of the Democratic Party. Not from the streets. Not the Republicans. Not even from the top of the Party. Even if it was made part of the Democratic Party Platform willingly, or if Obama put it out as his own Election Manifesto, it wouldn't work. Because neither of those documents, and those processes, have even the slightest credibility left.

Nope, it has to come from somewhere else. It has to be a credible threat, coming from mainstream, unobjectionable people. And they have downed their oars, already, stood up, and announced that they will not row another stroke.

If Obama was faced with that, during a campaign, and it involved enough active people in the Party, and he'd have to act. And act fast. No way the Dems can win without a strong machine on the ground - that's just a fact.

Make a short list of demands - related to home ownership and jobs and tuition and such - and make them sign on.

by Qnonymous (not verified) on Mon, 05/21/2012 - 3:34pm

Bravo Q, that is so well stated.

Lets hope, they're not too arrogant and they'll listen.

by Resistance on Mon, 05/21/2012 - 4:34pm

Hey Q

How do you propose to start this process and who's to put it all together?

Thanks.

by Aunt Sam on Mon, 05/21/2012 - 5:50pm

by Resistance on Mon, 05/21/2012 - 9:52pm

You.

Get busy.

by Qnonymous (not verified) on Mon, 05/21/2012 - 10:31pm

ah, so disappointing, was so hoping you would have an action plan and not just be another who only whines, attacks and snarks without anything constructive or positive that will help not just hinder.

I've been busy, researching, organizing, arming myself with facts and communicating both verbally and in writing with others (including local, state and national elected officials, party organizers and many others) in ongoing effort to work towards being proactive and hopefully build awareness. Amazing what engaging in some positive discourse can accomplish.

by Aunt Sam on Mon, 05/21/2012 - 11:42pm

Start @ 3:21

What does your mirror say Sam ......

by Resistance on Tue, 05/22/2012 - 2:16am

http://dagblog.com/reader-blogs/becoming-mirror-12712#comment-146353

Our aspirations, those ideals toward which we actually strive (as opposed to those which we would like to believe we aspire towards), will manifest themselves.

If we are just going through the motions, we may be becoming a mirror, but what we reflecting back to world may be something less than beautiful. Yet if we struggle to be patient (and fail), to be kind (and fail), to be graceful (and fail), to be compassion and just (and fail), then our becoming will reflect in ways that can only improve something like our political environment. In that I have to have faith.

by Aunt Sam on Tue, 05/22/2012 - 11:30am

This is absurd - Quinn's life has been an action plan, trying to get progressive laws codified in 3 countries, writing legislation and trying to get green policies snuck into corporate-case inundated campaigns.

Does he have a plan for how to get a bunch of complacent people to primary Obama when they're stuck in a "we have to stick with this milque-toast horse midstream, otherwise the GOP wolves will eat us" attitude? Sadly, he does not. So he'll stick to electric grids and battery-powered cars and such for the moment.

by PeraclesPlease on Tue, 05/22/2012 - 1:42am

I didn't think you'd be up to it, Auntie. Too busy chasing down those illegal voters, eh? Yessirree, made your lists of priorities and checked it twice, did you? You go, girl!

by Qnonymous (not verified) on Tue, 05/22/2012 - 10:15am

That's "positive discourse" to you, Sir!

by PeraclesPlease on Tue, 05/22/2012 - 11:06am

We all do what we can do, Quinn, and we're all working toward the same goals. Give it a rest.

by Ramona on Tue, 05/22/2012 - 12:08pm

Get together with other long-time Democratic Party activists and threaten to not work for him this election. Threaten to not raise money. Threaten to get others to do the same. If asked, you can say you'll still vote for him - if that's a personal fetish - but emphasize that nothing else will be forthcoming.

Seems to me to be a mistake to threaten something you're not willing to carry through on if the ultimatum isn't met. So you might say, "But we are willing to carry through."

Okay, but there are two goals here: 1) to move Obama left, and 2) keep Romney out of the WH. Setting this ultimatum means if you fail with #1--let's say he doesn't accede to the list of demands for whatever reason--your follow-through will mean that you are ALSO that much more likely to fail with #2.

Not raising money when you otherwise would, for example, would be one way of actively helping Romney win.

Wouldn't it be better to try to convince Obama that this list of "demands" is the smartest way for him to win a tight election? And if he still doesn't get it, you still work to achieve goal #2?

And if you still lose, well then, you have more ammunition to convince others next cycle of your keen understanding of the American electorate and what they "really" want? And you should be listened to instead of being kicked to the curb?

And if you win, you're double vindicated.

Of course, you could say that it really doesn't matter if Romney gets in. He and Obama are tweedle-dee and tweedle-dum. In that case, Dan's plan of turning off the news and curling up with some good books is surely the easiest route to take.

by Peter Schwartz on Tue, 05/22/2012 - 8:46am

If were all about sending a message; what was the message when the democrats lost seats in the mid term?

Did you listen to the people or did you listen to your own spin?

If the left wanted to send a message to Obama and the rest of the democrats, We should have had a circus, like the republicans had

Every night we saw the push and pull of all the republican candidates as they maneuvered to garner support.

We democrats were not afforded the opportunity to force Candidate Obama in any direction.

We Democrats are not able to send a message, until the fateful hour and day arrives.

We are forced to accept the "establishment" choice, never having any other option or opportunity to send a message.

Fine fix were in now, if the base doesn't accept the establishments coronated.

How many opportunities did the Republicans get to showcase their positions, to get the base fired up with HOPE and CHANGE of a new direction

2012 Projected winner: the one that got their base fired up with HOPE and CHANGE (It worked before it'll probably make the difference again.)

The democrats now get to use fear, in order to win;

Obama or else

I hear many saying, None of the above; I suppose they'll just sit this one out.

Besides the establishment; the ones that chose Obama wont care either way, their monied interests win with either candidate.

The "establishment" gets the gold and us poor saps on the bottom of the food chain; the ones that didn't really get a say, those who couldn't send a message, in the nominating process; get the shaft

* Message for the future; if a sitting President loses a majority in either House they should automatically be primaried.

Losing at the midterm was a message.

Thing is, the Democratic party misread the message, to late, as they might find now.

Imagine in 2016, "We Democrats heard you in 2012"

"The loss sent us a message"

Message to Obama: YOU should have done more, to help the bottom feeders; The homeowners trying to build a nest.

With friends like you, who needs enemies

by Resistance on Tue, 05/22/2012 - 9:52am

Losing at the midterm was a message.

Thing is, the Democratic party misread the message, to late, as they might find now.

What do you think the message was, Resistance?

by Peter Schwartz on Wed, 05/23/2012 - 9:15am

We democrats were not afforded the opportunity to force Candidate Obama in any direction.

We Democrats are not able to send a message, until the fateful hour and day arrives.

We are forced to accept the "establishment" choice, never having any other option or opportunity to send a message.

Talking about "not being afforded the opportunity" strikes me as a dead end.

Nor do I see where anyone was forced to do anything--but I'm happy to be enlightened. Maybe Ramona and TMac are bigwigs in the Democratic Party and wield a lot of power, but at one point Quinn sort of accused me of throwing progressives out of the party (just for making some comments here he didn't like). I can assure you I have no such power and am not a political player at all.

Some of this has to do with the dynamics of who's in power. You didn't see the Tea Party rise when GWB was in the WH, and yet if you listen to conservatives now, they almost ALL say that Bush displeased them with all this spending. Were they biding their time until the Republicans had lost the WH?

I don't know if there was much conservative teeth gnashing over Bush's deviance from conservative principles while he was in office. Maybe there was, but it seemed to explode just after Obama was elected.

I wonder how this "spontaneous" "populist" movement was able to field 60 first-time candidates and win. Get them from 0 to 60 in less than two years.

Do you know?

Minus their very rich backers, how far would they have gotten? How many folks would they have elected? How many rich folk do we have backing progressives?

Leave aside Obama for the moment...

What was stopping progressives from running for Congress in 2010? What was stopping progressives from stopping the Tea Partiers from taking over the House? The party establishment should have been much more on the ball in 2010, but what stopped progressives from running, too?

by Peter Schwartz on Thu, 05/24/2012 - 6:24pm

Umm, if I were a "big wig" in the Democratic Party, what on earth would I be doing at DAGblog? (Not saying anything bad about dag, but seriously?)

by tmccarthy0 on Thu, 05/24/2012 - 6:26pm

Well, it does sort of seem that you and Ramona get blamed for the current state of the Democratic Party. So, I thought, well, maybe you wield some power.

by Peter Schwartz on Thu, 05/24/2012 - 9:56pm

Quite true Peter, we get much of the blame.

I chalk it up to a silent misogyny, where women are expected to agree with men, prop them up, make them feel they have giant brains and are smart, but if you don't play that game, and make them feel smart and clever, they do everything they can't to make sure you stay silent. Even as far as making specious claims about being personally attacked.

It's quite comical to read though and I get a real chuckle reading their crazy, way too long, treatises about how everyone is picking on them and god will strike us all down, etc and so on.

by tmccarthy0 on Fri, 05/25/2012 - 7:56am

So your earlier statements that you won't criticize Obama no matter what are not responsible, only that you're a woman?

Curious.

by PeraclesPlease on Fri, 05/25/2012 - 9:12am

* Message for the future; if a sitting President loses a majority in either House they should automatically be primaried. Losing at the midterm was a message.

But do you really think Obama lost the mid-terms because his policies weren't progressive enough? That if he'd had a public option in the ACA, the waters would have been calmed?

Maybe if he'd paid more attention to housing and had "solved" the problem before 2010, the Tea Party wouldn't have found any fertile soil.

But at the risk of sounding like an excuse maker, my memory is that there was a lot of confusion as to what to do to solve the housing crisis back then. HAMP was tried and was a failure.

And as I recall, the Tea Party was sparked less by anger at the bank bailouts than by anger that some homeowners--the "irresponsible ones"--were going to get help from the government while folks who were responsible, didn't take out loans they couldn't afford, were going to see their home values decline and still be required to make the same payments they'd always made. That was what Santelli was screaming about.

by Peter Schwartz on Thu, 05/24/2012 - 6:34pm

HAMP was barely used, that's why it was a failure.

by PeraclesPlease on Fri, 05/25/2012 - 9:13am

you moderates for Obama

Ramona's a moderate? Who knew? I always got the impression from her blogging that she was a classic bleeding-heart-FDR & RFK-loving labor-supporting liberal. Talk about moving Overton windows!

by artappraiser on Fri, 05/18/2012 - 10:53pm

Awww, you saw right through me.

Thank you verra verra much.

by Ramona on Fri, 05/18/2012 - 11:00pm

Headline: A whole helluva lot of the traditional liberal-labour-left of the Democratic Party has done the slow shuffle across to ground once occupied by the Republicans. So, um, no, I'm not moving any Overton windows AA. People have stepped through of their own accord.

by Qnonymous (not verified) on Sat, 05/19/2012 - 12:13am

It's easy to love FDR and RFK - they're dead. Even Republicans occasionally claim to like FDR sometimes. But when a slightly compassionate cause comes along, like standing up for poor homeowners or not tasing people in their cars or pushing back against robo-drones firing into civilians - is there any real love, or are we all hunkered down doing our own thing, just trying to get the kids to gym class...

Yes, the left wing of the party has been decimated

by Anonymous (not verified) on Sat, 05/19/2012 - 3:22am

Protect Obama ......or else

by Resistance on Sat, 05/19/2012 - 4:38am

Why do you think they've done the slow shuffle rightward?

by Peter Schwartz on Sat, 05/19/2012 - 1:00pm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e10MTBwIVss

xoxo, Ramona :)

by LisB on Fri, 05/18/2012 - 10:29pm

Hi Lis. Sublime Patsy. Thanks.

by Ramona on Fri, 05/18/2012 - 10:53pm

by Resistance on Fri, 05/18/2012 - 11:12pm

Um.

by LisB on Fri, 05/18/2012 - 11:16pm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0qm8nq8RcA

by LisB on Sat, 05/19/2012 - 12:20am

This has been fun. Thanks.

by LisB on Sat, 05/19/2012 - 12:21am

I don't really consider myself a 'fairweather dem' because I don't associate with myself as needing to belong to a political party any more than a religion.

I will say as one who was very supportive of President Obama in the last presidential election that I became disenchanted with him for many valid reasons.

However, there are more reasons to vote for him than not in my view.

The federal judicial positions alone are a big enough issue to vote for the president even if I didn't feel like it. I did not realize that the republicans had saved up empty judicial seats at the end of the Clinton years for GW to fill when he took office. It appears they are attempting to keep as many seats empty as possible. We already see the affect that many conservatives are having in our judicial system. That alone gets me to vote for the president.

There are more issue reasons to vote for him than not in my view. And the republicans seem to keep adding more reasons every day.

I think many can be persuaded to even have passion about voting based on the issues.

by synchronicity on Fri, 05/18/2012 - 10:59pm

Excellent reasons, Synch. The fact that the Republicans pretty much hate women, children, laborers and poor people cinched it for me.

by Ramona on Fri, 05/18/2012 - 11:05pm

Agree entirely and also think he's done some good and important things.'

by Peter Schwartz on Fri, 05/18/2012 - 11:06pm

I'm pretty much in Ramona's, Destor's, and Bruce's camp on this.

I'm in Dan's camp in the ways he's trying to change the "common wisdom" on key economic issues--trying to get people to think differently.

I think the president is one chess piece on the chess board. Maybe he's the Queen. He can do a lot of things. It's very important to keep him alive, even if becomes less than optimally effective.

If you're playing White, it certainly makes no sense to let Black capture your Queen unless you have some fancy sacrifice move (which I've yet to see play out in life).

But you can't focus all your attention on one piece. There are a whole bunch of other pieces that have to function in concert with the Queen to mate Black's King.

It takes an extraordinary Queen to do it alone--and mostly that doesn't happen. We imagine FDR did it "alone," but I think if you read the history, you'll find he didn't. He had good majorities in Congress.

So Obama turned out not to be the leader everyone had hoped for. So what? A progressive Congress with a lively progressive commentariat is probably far more important than just having one guy live up to our expectations.

No matter how much anyone screams at Obama, it doesn't matter. (So I disagree with Q that screaming earlier and louder would have mattered.) The conservatives have captured the rhetoric on a number of key issues. Even if Obama was another Jeremiah, he couldn't get a jobs bill passed without Congress. That's just a fact.

He doesn't have the legislative skill, nor the relationships on the Hill, nor the numbers on the Hill, to do what LBJ did. He was a greenhorn, and we all knew that.

A lot of the progressive disappointment with Obama really boils down to: "We know he probably couldn't have gotten XYZ, but he didn't even try." Followed by long, involved polling data and accounts of backroom deals showing that he could've gotten XYZ "if only" he'd done this or that...

So focus on the other pieces on the board.

I disagree with Dan that Obama's a conservative. He's a liberal with a belief that conservatives and liberals can agree and unite around certain things. He believes that liberals and conservatives HAVE to agree on certain things to move the country forward. And the deadlock we're in now pretty well supports that idea.

by Peter Schwartz on Fri, 05/18/2012 - 11:04pm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tr8bZ25uo1U

Kidding aside, I'm with Ramona on this, all the way. But those of you who know me, know that already. So I'm just here to add my little bit of backing to Ramona, because I do not want to argue with anyone.

I just want to vote Dem in the fall.

Because to do otherwise would be suicide.

Good night.

by LisB on Fri, 05/18/2012 - 11:59pm

Your link is appropriate

The poor peasants were fighting the plutocracy and it's allies both R's and (r's the D's)

To the king, it mattered naught, who died on the battlefield; R's or D's, just so long as the king remained in power

by Resistance on Sat, 05/19/2012 - 4:08am

Somebody is going to have to tell me what came first--the chicken or the egg. Did the real progressives start taunting the fake progressives first? Or did the real progressives taunt the fake progressives first? Shit, I plead guilty in this area; I almost started a riot with a blog I wrote about this "dispute". And I felt shitty about that, and if I hurt anyone for things I've written about this domestic political "dispute" then I want to know that so I can apologize and ask for your forgiveness.

Still, give me a break people.

We come on here and we write opinions about stuff, but we don't know each other to the point where we can judge what each of us is doing to make the world a better place. We just don't and it's just dumb to start pissing and moaning about who has the bigger progressive shmekel.

In the end I honestly believe that all this stuff about what the president can do or should have done is 10 percent relevant and 90 percent bullshit. Politics, at least in this country, are a friggin' joke. And here we are judging each other in a personal way about where we stand on re-electing the president, when in the end what matters most is how we live our lives and what contributions we make in real life to serve our brothers and sisters. I just hope any good I've done outweighs the bad or the indifferent when it's time to meet my maker. That's ultimately the only standard I care about.

All of this doesn't mean that I don't believe in the importance of re-electing the president. And that doesn't mean that I don't understand why folks are disappointed with the president.

But this is getting stupid, and I think it's time to sit back and take a deep breath. Ramona, you should recognize that you did the same thing I did on here a few months back--you tried to make a point about the importance of voting for Obama and you offended some people big time and you should accept that and respond in the right way. On the other hand, I don't think you have to apologize for the passion you feel about your position, and I certainly don't think anyone has the right to treat you disrespectfully.

Good night, sleep tight.

by Bruce Levine on Sat, 05/19/2012 - 1:02am

As Democrats we've signed on to stand firm against our enemies--the enemies of the people...

Just a quick question, very seriously posited: What does this mean?

by SleepinJeezus on Sat, 05/19/2012 - 2:30am

My enemies is poverty, no access to healthcare, ignorance, corporate malfeasance, prejudices and no jobs. Most of all...I won't vote for GOP candidates because I don't want the Koch family to be this country's defacto royal family. They bank roll the crazy right because they are nutty Birchers. At one time the GOP even saw them dangerous. I am proud of the grassroots and the fight they are waging for populist issues. Even the ladies have put a dog in that fight. I never thought I would see the day when women would rally around issues as a political block and has the GOP worried. With out the ladies the GOP won't stay in control. The nurses marched this week in Chicago and plan to stay in the fight. If the Supreme Court shoots down health care reform, the nurses union will be like pit bulls on this issue. There will be plenty of reasons for cranky democrates to come around in time for the election...Momoe

by Anonymous (not verified) on Sat, 05/19/2012 - 7:02am

Thank you, Momoe. I thought the reference to "our enemies" was obvious.

by Ramona on Sat, 05/19/2012 - 7:31am

Poverty; your enemy, is the right wings enemy too, in other words it's every bodies enemy.

The National debt is driving us to poverty.

When our forefathers,set our government up, it knew the fledgling government would need a revenue source.

NAFTA and such like trade agreements, put the burden on the tax payers to support US .

With unemployment and manufacturing jobs shipped overseas; it means = no tax base means

Obamas signature achievement, healthcare; consumed 18 months of deliberation.

JOBS was the number one issue, not healthcare.

For without jobs, who'll pay for the healthcare..... DOH!

Obama failed to prevent poverty, as he was more interested in HIS goal; although it is one of our goals; it was not the #1 priority, after having just entered a financial collapse.

JOBS JOBS JOBS

Housing related industries are 19% of our GDP.

Obama couldn't save the jobs being exported and he couldn't protect an industry that delivers 19% of our GDP.

IDIOTS

by Resistance on Sat, 05/19/2012 - 10:17am

Resistance, I agree that Obama should have spent more time on the problems of unemployment and poverty, but your anger at him because he "failed to prevent poverty" and "couldn't save jobs from going overseas" is really misdirected.

I rarely hear you express anger at the Republicans for anything this country is going through. It's always Obama, even though you must know he can't do most of the things you accuse him of ignoring. He might very well have been able to do more without the relentless blocking by his opponents of every move forward. Or it could be that he actually is clueless about the needs of our citizens. But you're projecting a savior status on him, putting him in a role no president has ever been able to fulfill. (Not even FDR)

Unless you can come to terms with what a president is actually capable of accomplishing, you'll always be disappointed, no matter who the president is.

by Ramona on Sat, 05/19/2012 - 10:45am

I vote Republican because the signature achievement of the Republican Party this century was decided by The Decider IN ONE AFTERNOON after the worst terror attack in world history, then the GOP signature achievement was marketed FREELY to the public like laundry detergent IN ONE MONTH while they simultaneously blocked any investigation of the terror attack and renamed French Fries Freedom Fries. Then USE OF FORCE was pushed through the Congress under mists of US government anthrax, WMD, MUSHROOM CLOUDS AND DRONES OF DEATH three weeks before midterm elections. THAT IS THE WAY GOVERNMENT should work my friends, that is why GOP loving billionaires are spending tens of millions need to insure the DEFEAT of Barack Hussein Obama.

by NCD on Sat, 05/19/2012 - 11:21am

In a way, this is why FDR was so successful.

People were very scared, and when they're scared, they're willing to follow the man with a plan.

by Peter Schwartz on Sat, 05/19/2012 - 11:53am

People were 'scared'? Are you equating the threat from Third Reich and the Japanese Empire during the Roosevelt administration, with the 2003 'threat' from Iraq? Of course, that's the belief of The Base, it all worked very well on them..

Of course, there is a difference between actual threats and fake concocted ones made up to, among other things, invade a certain oil producing country, and aid your re-election.

by NCD on Sat, 05/19/2012 - 12:19pm

No, I'm not "equating" them at all on the substance.

However, people were scared and the fear was whipped up into a nice froth.

It is important to distinguish between real and fake threats, but at an emotional level, they aren't that different in some ways.

by Peter Schwartz on Sat, 05/19/2012 - 1:05pm

Ramona,

Here's a way to move past this impasse between the two "factions."

I think most of us would more or less agree about the areas where Obama has come up short, either from a lack of inherent belief in a particular course of action, weakness, inexperience, pragmatism, the relentless attack of Republicans...or just because everyone is going to get some things wrong, even badly wrong, even when they're trying to get things right.

So, to me, the question is HOW do we move, nudge, compel, help Obama to move in a better direction without giving aid, ammunition and succor to the enemy, and without dispiriting our own party members.

What are the steps we should take?

In this regard, experienced political workers like you and Q and Bruce and some others could offer valuable advice, practical advice, on how to do this.

No one here wants Romney to win. No one wants to destroy the Democratic Party. And no one really wants to engage in internecine battles with people with whom they agree on about 98% of everything.

by Peter Schwartz on Sat, 05/19/2012 - 11:52am

Apparently we do not all agree on where Obama has come up short. Some, well, at least one, believes he has gone completely wrong in some very important areas and in ways morally, ethically, legally, and pragmatically wrong, and where some of those wrongs have been clearly against both the letter and the intent of the Constitution.
Some Democrats here, and apparently for the most part across the nation, do not agree on Obama's high level of invasions on the civil liberties of American citizens along with the high level of attacks on whistle-blowers who have tried to reveal government abuses both here and abroad. For example, allowing the torturous incarceration of Bradley Manning. Declaring the right to decide that anyone anywhere can be killed but refusing to allow scrutiny of his lawyers legal justification. Acting upon that declared power. Killing many innocents in the process but trying hard to hide that fact. Declaring the right to kill people observed by camera from thousands of miles away and killing them because they fit a profile but without any hard evidence of their affiliations or intent. Being perfectly content to kill anyone in their immediate vicinity. Failing to understand, or else failing to care, that they are creating many more lifetime mortal enemies in the process. Refusing legal recourse to innocent victims of obviously wrong, criminally wrong, actions on the grounds of security when it is obvious that security is not the real reason.
The list of these type failings, which seem to be mostly taboo topics among so many , can go on, the list is much longer than what I have included, but I think my point is clear.
Considering that the policies of the Republicans include some/many that are considered 'evil', or at least that is a word that is used, and feeling it to be very important to vote for Obama over Romney, even though Obama is way less than perfect, is a pragmatic and sensible conclusion. That vote is one for the less-than-perfect over evil. Voting for the lesser of two evils is still a vote for 'evil' and is a much tougher choice to reconcile if the policies of the lesser bad candidate don't even seem to be objected to by those who want us all to choose him and are therefore very unlikely to be reversed. They will become, or not change from being, a significant part of the nature of our country.

by A Guy Called LULU on Sat, 05/19/2012 - 1:20pm

My question was...HOW do we move Obama in a better direction?

I don't believe the need for Obama to do better is in question.

The question is...how?

Problems occur when one side's attempt at this don't move Obama in a better direction and, at the same time, at least appear to help Romney.

by Peter Schwartz on Sat, 05/19/2012 - 1:52pm

My question was...HOW do we move Obama in a better direction?
But you ignore that I have disputed the statement in your comment that I then followed with my comment above. You said:
I think most of us would more or less agree about the areas where Obama has come up short,...

I pointed out serious ways in which I, and many liberal and progressive people as well as many conservatives with a conscience, think Obama is doing things which are unacceptable for reasons far more fundamental, if right and wrong in the higher sense of those word's meaning is taken into account, that is, than whether he has the right position on taxation, for instance. You are saying that we agree in general or in most part and I am saying that we radically disagree [apparently] on some issues that he is actually being effective in promoting. Choosing to kill when that means a killing will then happen is not the same as choosing a tax rate which you may or may not be able to implement.
As to the question of "HOW" we can push Obama without aiding Romney, I think it is probably too late in this election cycle to do so, but at the same time I have answered how several times. The only thing that might make Obama, or most any other politician, pay attention to your opinion or mine, is if he comes to believe that we might share the views of a large enough group that could, and just maybe would, withhold our vote if he didn't change his ways.

by A Guy Called LULU on Sat, 05/19/2012 - 4:31pm

if he comes to believe that we might share the views of a large enough group that could, and just maybe would, withhold our vote if he didn't change his ways.

I think this is 180-degrees wrong.

by Peter Schwartz on Sat, 05/19/2012 - 4:51pm

Well don't keep me in suspense. Explain your assertion that my thoughts are exactly in the wrong direction if you can, or do you think that there is no way to affect an elected officials actions so we should not bother trying? Maybe you think we should just always vote for our tribe and take what we get and then cheer regardless of outcome, just like we cheer for a uniform in pro sports and stay loyal, win or lose, even if the team is populated by serial wife beaters and worse.

by A Guy Called LULU on Sat, 05/19/2012 - 5:35pm

You seem eager to find the irreconcilable differences among a group of people that is infinitesimally small, largely homogenous, and far more sophisticated politically than about 99.99% of the population (which isn't meant as a slam in any way).

With this orientation, you aren't going to gather up enough people to stop anything.

I think the focus on "stopping" is the Tea Party approach and is the wrong one. It's thin gruel, especially for the average person who needs the nutrition of a positive vision. So this also cuts against bringing together a large number of people who are otherwise consumed by their lives and don't have time to parse all the positions.

This is fine for a party that wants to stop stuff, but not for a party that wants to build something.

So my question "how" was a genuine one because I don't know how and tend to think we can't do it now. But I asked the question because it seems like the essential one. Bickering about "who lost China" and who's got the most progressive cred and who's immoral because of XYZ...well, you might as well campaign for Romney.

Voting for the tribe when it comes down to voting is mostly the right approach-- otherwise, you just get eaten by the other tribe. I have no problem with it because it gives the tribe another chance to get it right.

Of course, losing big could force the party to reflect and change. That's what happened, IMO, in the 1970s, 1980s...and moved the Democratic Party to the right with Clinton. We got tired of losing so we took a page from the folks who were consistently beating us, at least at the WH.

by Peter Schwartz on Sat, 05/19/2012 - 6:35pm

Exactly the right answer--in my eyes, anyway. You've rested my case. Thank you.

by Ramona on Sat, 05/19/2012 - 6:45pm

This is fine for a party that wants to stop stuff, but not for a party that wants to build something.

The democrats and the rest of the nation was eager to build something.

We did need to stop the War, we did need to reign in the abuses of Wall street, WE DID NEED TO LET THE BUSH TAX CUTS END

BUT OH NO! Our Der leader decided to forgive and FORGET, who delivered him to victory.

Obama not only didn't stop the madness, he allowed the republicans to regroup and reengage; they won the midterms.

Effectively neutering the Dems

When Obama helped save the bankers, instead of the homeowners, it showed which side he was on.

Does Obama really believe, the bankers will reciprocate, to bolster the democratic lines of defense, against the republicans?

Maybe the Koch brothers should have lost more money, then maybe they wouldn't have been in a financial position to launch attacks?

The rich banker class was spared and appears they profited; while the lowly homeowner suffers financial ruin.

In that state, I don't care to give all I HAVE left, to those who could really care less, about our plight.

Obama's healthcare plan, was a way for him to count as taxable the benefits received, by the working class.

But hell NO, don't let the Bush tax cuts end.

When Obama had the chance, he didn't stop it, and when it comes time for reelection;..... time to trot out the ol class warfare card.

Where was the Buffet rule, when the Dems held both houses?

Hard to hope for a democratic change, when the Republicans hold the leash, or the dog serves another master.

No way to rebuild, if you don't stop digging the hole used to imprison you.

by Resistance on Sat, 05/19/2012 - 9:17pm

BUT OH NO! Our Der leader decided to forgive and FORGET, who delivered him to victory.

Obama not only didn't stop the madness, he allowed the republicans to regroup and reengage; they won the midterms.

Okay, what I hear here is...Obama made a mistake. That's how I'd phrase this.

We can take it further: He didn't make a mistake, he was actually beholden to these interests and dissembled to get elected. That's obviously much worse.

But I tend to step back from these things and try to game out the counter-factual:

Suppose Obama had directed Holder to prosecute all the malefactors on Wall Street. Create a real Tale of Two Cities tumbrels rolling to the guillotine spectacle for the country.

If the country had been doing okay economically and all the other moving parts where under control, maybe this would have been fine. Everyone's in favor of putting criminals in jail.

But that was not the situation in the country. A lot of bad and scary and hard to understand stuff was going on.

So let's say he went ahead as we thought he should have. Of course, Wall Street has tons of dough to fight back. Is it even clear that many of the most egregious practices were technically against the law? Or was the whole unregulated system filled with quicksand? Was the problem law-breaking or lack of regulations?

So the white shoe firms drag the thing out and out and out. People can't understand all the technicalities--and they are all technicalities--because no one understood those products to begin with. Pretty the waters are getting muddy, very muddy, just as is happening now with the Trayvon Martin case.

Meanwhile, Rome is burning. And putting these guys in jail isn't getting anyone back into his home anyway. Or preventing foreclosures. And, in any event, the market has put these homes underwater. The values people borrowed against were illusory, and now they're gone. People are losing their jobs, so they can't even pay their mortgages if they wanted to and their homes still had value.

So pretty soon, at least on this high-profile effort, it starts to look like Obama is more interested in punishing a few high-profile "scapegoats" and making headlines than in finding solutions for folks. He's looking back when he should be--and we elected him to--look forward--because, damnit, things are too serious now to navel gaze on the past.

And what if all that time and money doesn't even produce a conviction...or maybe that one guy from Goldman, Thierry Somebody, gets sent to jail but all the big guys walk? I could easily see events turning out this way instead of the mile-long perp walk of the 500 biggest criminals on Wall Street we like imagine looking back.

Now, of course, Obama should be able to walk and chew gum. Just because he's going after Wall Street malefactors doesn't mean he couldn't have been doing a lot of other stuff at the same time.

But my point is that it's not always so easy to say what someone should have done even with the benefit of hindsight. I'm not saying he shouldn't have pursued convictions, but I'm not as certain of it as maybe you are.

by Peter Schwartz on Sun, 05/20/2012 - 12:17pm

We got the FDR "New Deal" because We the people, pressured the capitalists to give. The Capitalists were about to lose everything, as the nation was bending towards Socialism to counter the abuses perpetrated upon the working class.

This generations watershed moment of change; after a 2nd great depression; was neutered by Obama and the corporatist whores within the Democratic party..

The financial crisis was the TIME for change.

Capitalism and its cousin Corporatism, was on the ropes, it had failed on a monumental scale.

A NEW...... NEW and Improved NEW DEAL was ours for the taking; if only the leadership that "promised us change" would have grasped the moment.

Rome burned because the people let it burn. The roman peasant had nothing to lose.

The French Revolution could have been avoided, but those in power were to arrogant. Instead of making the changes that would have avoided the revolution; the arrogant ruling class said "Let them eat cake" of course it wasn't as good, as the cake the rich and the elite got.

More worthless stimulus (cake) anyone?

It sure kept Detroit and the union workers from rebelling and taking it to the streets.

by Resistance on Sun, 05/20/2012 - 1:03pm

Ramona, my anger is pointed squarely on the party, which says one thing and does another.

I know what scoundrels the Republicans are.

What bothers me, is the lies perpetrated by those who claim to be my friends.

In 2008, WE of the Democratic Party allowed for differing viewpoints to be expressed.

We the electorate, got to choose which candidate truly reflected the ideals of the Democratic party, progressive ideas vs. any other ideas worthy of consideration.

I believed Obama, when in order to secure the rust belt vote; he said he would look at NAFTA; as many others felt his feigned concerns.

We were surprised, when we heard about the winking behind our backs. We should have questioned then, his sincerity for the working class.

Fast forward to 2012.

We, of the Democratic Party, were not allowed to vent any other candidates, to ascertain and to put to rest the value of progressive ideas in the Democratic Party. Continually told progressive ideas can’t win.

We were told by the higher powers

"OBAMA WILL BE THE STANDARD BEARER OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY"

No choice, no democratic process SHUTUP AND SIT DOWN

OBAMA WILL BE THE STANDARD BEARER and if you don’t like it .......Tough

The democratic party is just another wing, of the Right leaners who will only allow...... no one left of Obama

Ramona; if your satisfied, with remaining a pawn and principles of democracy are irrelevant, vote for Obama.

When 2016 comes around, you can vote again for the Banker class, selected nominees.

Isn't democracy grand; you get to choose from the candidates, the Banker class and their lackeys of print and airwave media will allow.

What principles? Money ...... kings and serfs?

Keep rowing slaves.....Obama or else

Fine fix were in now; this late in the cycle.

Either way, whoever wins, the banker class will find either candidate acceptable.

Democratic voters, who accept this sham, have become a spineless bunch.

At least the Tea Party with all their idiocy, has forced the Republican Party, to bend to the will of their folks, their choices.

Democrats are told,........ this is your choice. Capitulate or suffer.

Ramona ….Have you raised the white flag?

by Resistance on Sat, 05/19/2012 - 2:02pm

The Tea Party is not a good example of success.

Some of the grassroots of the Tea Party might be akin to the OWS, for example, in their disgust at banker bailouts--but this complaint has been nullified.

The power behind the Tea Party is simply the corporate power behind the Republican Party as a whole. It's a schism without a difference.

So when a Mourdoch unseats a Lugar, what have they really done? There is no substantive difference between the two, but Mourdock will likely go down to defeat whereas Lugar was a shoe-in.

The Tea Party won, but what did they win?

And even if Mourdock does win, what have the Tea Party done in Congress except create a dysfunctional Republican caucus. Yes, they have Boehner (a weak leader) by the balls--but then what?

The filibuster is tailor made for them, because it only gives them the power to stop. That's something, but not very much, and the American people will get tired of it.

The Tea Party has power, but it's driving down a dead end street with no turn-offs or exits. And they don't care because destroying government, good, bad, or indifferent is their goal.

Progressives have a much different and harder goal. We can't emulate them and be successful at reaching our goals.

by Peter Schwartz on Sat, 05/19/2012 - 2:18pm

For sure, progressives and the working class can't achieve their goals, when the President disarmed us.

Why didn't Obama vigorously go after, the Bush tax cuts when the opportunity was there.

Did he not know, we'd need the revenue?

Obama is a light weight and his Republican counterperts are after blood?

How much more important was the agenda the president set.

Jobs jobs jobs, should have been #1

The timing for banking regulations should have been immediately following the crisis, when Obama had a majority and it was fresh on voters minds.

But oh no! Lets take on healthcare first? Divisive; Diversion?

Why did the democrats lose the midterm elections? Who misjudged that watershed moment?

The bastards of wall street, should have done a perp walk.

Bush and company should have been vigorously pursued by he justice department, as was Clinton.

But nothing from Obama; evidently he's a part of the mutual admiration society?

The Tea Party doesn't care to protect the banker class, Obama does.

Housing related industries account for 19% of our nations GDP

Obama screwed the homeowners and the economy remains in the tank.

Not much there, for a left equivalent of the tea party movement when the President took away the pitchforks.

Give him 4 more years, what did he promise this time?

by Resistance on Sat, 05/19/2012 - 3:22pm

I agree with you about these failures...but I can't go back in time.

I will say that back in 2000, we heard there was no difference between Gore and Bush. And the usual reasons were adduced.

No one can know what would have happened if Gore had fought harder and won, but I'm willing to bet we would not have gone into Iraq.

...he might have done something much worse...but I don't think so.

How hard did the progressive wing fight for Gore? Do you remember? I honestly don't.

by Peter Schwartz on Sat, 05/19/2012 - 3:30pm

For sure, progressives and the working class can't achieve their goals, when the President disarmed us.

I see what you mean here and agree.

However, this is playing the victim. And the one group that can't afford to think like victims are victims.

by Peter Schwartz on Sat, 05/19/2012 - 3:34pm

Resistance, I can agree with some of what you've said and disagree with other parts, but I don't go in for name-calling. If you can't carry on a conversation with me without resorting to personal attacks, we have nothing more to talk about.

by Ramona on Sat, 05/19/2012 - 2:24pm

I apologize, if need be..... but what name calling or personal attack are you so worked up over?

Should I have said, some folks are fair weather democrats?

I can easily recognize, what I believe is of that breed.

I believe it is Fair weather Democrats, who have betrayed the party. They saw an opportunity to high jack the Party

Obama and his upper echelon have high jacked the party, to serve their agenda.

Notice; it's Protect Obama or else; as though Obama was more important than the party of FDR.

Obama will now take on the mantle of the savior of the Democratic Party.

I do not wish to be Obama's pawn. To get him relected; considering; he kicked many of us under the bus, in his rise to power.

Convenient at election time, Obama or else ( fill in the blank ) Chaos, destruction,

by Resistance on Sat, 05/19/2012 - 2:51pm

"The party of FDR"?

A LOT of water has passed under the bridge since FDR.

To pretend that this was the party of FDR until Clinton or Obama rose is silly.

Dukakis? Mondale? Carter? Teddy Kennedy couldn't get arrested in 1979.

You have to go all the way back to McGovern (maybe) and really LBJ (who had his own problems) or HHH to find the party of FDR.

In fact, some would say even McGovern betrayed the party of FDR by pushing McCarthy aside.

And the party of FDR developed many of the foreign policy "muscularity" problems that Lulu complains about above. Bay of Pigs? Latin America? Who knows? He might well have used drones himself.

I wouldn't be surprised to learn that it was the party of FDR that developed the expansionist foreign policy we now complain of (along with some things we like, like the UN).

by Peter Schwartz on Sat, 05/19/2012 - 3:04pm

The whole point of my piece was to remind Democrats that WE are the party and it's worth protecting. Without a strong Democratic showing, the Republicans win. Badmouthing or abandoning the party as a whole (not the leaders) hurts us all.

That's it. That's all there is.

by Ramona on Sat, 05/19/2012 - 3:32pm

I understand Ramona,

How do you get the leadership, the power brokers, to not take us for granted; if there is no punishment for abusing us?

We didn't need a third party candidate; we only needed to primary Obama.

It was the Party, that coronated Obama.

Did you get a say in the matter Ramona? I didnt.

Many talk of working, within the framework of the party, but the fix is in; that is the reality.

They want you to work, so you can put them into power and when the election is over, it's back to the same corruption.

Whether Obama would have won or lost the contest, the base would have been energized; our ideas would have been out there.

Instead; now were stuck with Obama or else; .......we get the dreaded Republicans.

Perfect plan, for those who want to control, the whole political process. i.e. moneyed interests

They want/need the electorate, to believe in the system; for the minute people lose faith in that system, those in power may be removed by force.

At least that's what they teach us in school, "we don't need bullets, we have the ballot."

Yeah right! Except the elections are controlled, to serve Whom?

They must think, were an easy mark?

by Resistance on Sat, 05/19/2012 - 5:00pm

But we didn't primary Obama. It's a dead horse. Quit beating it. If you've got a solution now's the time to present it.

by Ramona on Sat, 05/19/2012 - 5:26pm

You're right Ramona, were screwed.

Capitulate and vote for Obama or suffer.

The Democratic party did this to us; and you know what Ramona; it doesn't give a crap either; because where else you going to go.

Starters to regain control

REPEAL NAFTA, it hasn't delivered as promised.

It was intended as an integral part, in the destruction of Unions

With Unions gone, the voice of the working class was muted.

The Constitution provides for the working class; Tariffs and Duties.

NAFTA provided the capitalists, a means to circumvent the wisdom of our forefathers.

We've allowed greedy men, to take us down a wrong path.

Turn back.

by Resistance on Sat, 05/19/2012 - 10:28pm

Solutions, Resistance. I'm waiting for solutions.

by Ramona on Sat, 05/19/2012 - 11:06pm

Aren't we all waiting for solutions, Ramona? You make a strong case why the Dems require our support to stave off the Republican assault. But many here have made an equally salient argument why it is hopeless to keep voting for Dems who are ultimately as beholden to the same monied interests that own the Republicans. With great zeal, you attack the "fair weather" Dems. But you fail to acknowledge that you have no solution at all that actually stems and/or reverses the inexorable march toward fascism and repression that is aided and abetted by both Republicans (fast track) and Democrats (slow track).

Our system of government is horribly broken, perhaps irreparably so. The bottom line reality in today's politics: What corporations want, corporations get. Period. And they care not a whit about you or me. But they will allow us the pretense of political self-determination just to keep us manageable whilst they have their way with us. Enjoy the ride.

by SleepinJeezus on Sun, 05/20/2012 - 1:16am

"Democrats - going slower to hell in a handbasket - pull the lever for us!!!" What's not to like?

by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 05/20/2012 - 1:43am

Sleepin, I know I don't have to tell you that the worst thing we can do is walk around carrying "We Are Doomed" signs. We all know we have to fight to save this country. We also all know (I think) that less than six months from now we're going to have to elect Obama and try and get a Democratic majority in order to get a foothold. If we don't, and the Republicans take it all, we've given up the front and we'll be forced to retreat, regroup, and lick our wounds.

We've worked too hard to just give up because we're so damned mad at the Democrats.

Beyond that, I don't know. But with the Democrats we have a chance. With the Republicans, okay, we're doomed.

by Ramona on Sun, 05/20/2012 - 8:28am

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, ………..

…………. Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. …………. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--………… a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

by Resistance on Sun, 05/20/2012 - 10:46am

Uh-oh, don't mention secession - you'll cause a heap o' trouble.

by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 05/20/2012 - 12:31pm

Resistance, you are not the only one to arrive at the conclusion you express here.

Witness the increased militarization of the police as seen this week in Chicago and in nearly every city in America.

Make note of the incredible growth of the "security state" with its suspension of habeus corpus and other rights. (This occurs in such an efficient and inexorable fashion as to defy the notion that it is happenstance or just a temporary anomaly. And neither Republican nor Democrat will stand in its way, as we have seen in such remarkable fashion within just this last decade.)

Pay attention to how easily the corporations have overtaken the franchise itself, putting in place a "Step right up and win a kewpie doll!" style of transparency and integrity into our voting procedures where "one person, one vote" used to stand.

Look at the trashing of our public education system and the attempt to denigrate what remains of it. Ignorance is bliss, it is said. It is also repressive of any urge to stand tall in opposition to corporate power and might.

Consider the outright assault of worker's rights, women's rights, minority rights, and the rights of anyone who might be inclined to stand in opposition to the tyranny of the oligarchs. Also note how this is used to "divide and conquer" the masses, which makes it doubly beneficial to the powers in charge.

The list of aggression against "We the People" goes on and on, and this planned and well-executed oppression is readily apparent to those who are at all inclined to see it for what it is.

No, Resistance, you and I are not the only ones who consider such abuse of the commoners to be fertile ground for a righteous revolution. But King George has learned his lesson in the years since 1776. And unfortunately for us, he has learned that lesson very, very well. And he now allows us to be Democrats and Republicans so we can pretend we have some manner of control of our destiny, regardless of the fact that our politics will always eventually take us to whatever destination the oligarchs have mapped out for us.

There has to be a way to overcome this treadmill that leads us nowhere whilst the world moves along in accord with its owners. But I haven't seen anything so far in this thread that really shows what that path might be. And therein lies the dilemma that too often keeps me up at night.

I'm not hopeless, as my continued activism will show. But I am not blind to the challenge that confronts us, nor am I willing to fool myself that continued play by the corporatists rules of political engagement are purposeful. Indeed, marching happily along in this present game branded as a "Republican" or "Democrat" or even "Third Party Independent" is a sure recipe for continued devolution of justice and democracy itself. Something's gotta' give.

by SleepinJeezus on Sun, 05/20/2012 - 12:57pm

SleepinJ, this and your other comments are so well put.

by Resistance on Sun, 05/20/2012 - 1:39pm

The word on the streets, so to speak, is that this is by far the most impressive grassroots effort I've ever witnessed that is driving this recall of Scott Walker and my state Senator, the pig Scott Fitzgerald. It has been incredibly shaped and enhanced by social media, and has drawn a fair amount of inspiration and assistance from the OWS movement.

All that said, it is still far from a slam-dunk that Walker will be recalled. Citizens United money is unbelievably in play and it is impressive and oppressive in its consequence. In addition, the Repubs own the voting machines as we saw in the Prosser/Kloppenburg Supreme Court race, and Walker is the darling of our very conservative media in this state.

Thousands are working diligently in pursuit of this recall, most as volunteers and some to the point of physical and emotional exhaustion. It is THAT important. But will their efforts be enough to stem the tide toward tyranny and corporate fascism? Only time will tell. And I can't say I'm confident at this point. Which is why I remain all the more outraged over the notion that voting Dem and playing politics by the rules will somehow forestall what we see happening before our very eyes here in Wisconsin.

by SleepinJeezus on Sun, 05/20/2012 - 1:44pm

I thought voting Democratic WAS the way to recall Walker.

Or are you proposing carrying Walker out on a stretcher?

by Peter Schwartz on Sun, 05/20/2012 - 7:34pm

Keep up Peter; who says the vote will be counted fairly?

by Resistance on Sun, 05/20/2012 - 10:51pm

Okay, then you deal with THAT.

But if you don't vote Democratic in the first place, there will be no election to steal.

by Peter Schwartz on Mon, 05/21/2012 - 8:46am

This is a hot issue, and it is made hotter because the people who are fighting with each other share the same turf. Anyone who has gone through raising teenagers knows that.

I'm voting for Obama, not because I ever thought he was anything but a politician. I'm voting for Obama because I think he's the better of two choices. And I believe that the election of 2000 supports my intentions and posture on this issue--and indisputably so.

But a president is a necessary but insufficient means for social change. I look back at FDR, who campaigned for a balanced federal budget in 1932, and while that is not a perfect or complete metric I am reminded of the futility of resting on who sits in the oval office.

No, I am not saying that folks who oppose or support Obama would rest upon the election of the president. But I am saying that civil rights legislation passed, not only because Lyndon Johnson pushed it through--although one might argue that, absent LBJ as Senate Majority leader (not president), we would not have even gotten the 1957 Civil Rights Act, but then again, LBJ did that because he knew how to work the Senate rules and not because he was inspiring the nation. But civil rights legislation passed in 1964 because of a host of factors coming together, factors which had changed by the mid-term elections of 1966, when the GOP came back to life again.

Up yonder in the news section, NCD links to this NYTs article, in which the differences between Obama, Romney and Bush on Afghanistan at the present moment are clear and indisputable. But even progressives who were inspired by Obama as something new and special back in 2008 were prepared to go with the guy even though he made it clear that Afghanistan was a justified war. And now he's changed, not that much, but hopefully our sons and daughters are coming home sooner than they would under a Romney.

President Obama, like FDR before him, is not the way to move mountains. That's the job of each and every one of us. Let us look at ourselves in the mirror, and let us ask ourselves what we have done lately to make this world a better place. And then on here and in other venues, and particularly in real life, let us ponder what it is that we in the aggregate should be but are not doing, and let us strive to figure how how the missing "things to do" can be effected.

And then I submit, for what it's worth, I think we should all vote to elect Obama for a second term, if only because of the boring reality of what it takes to make a Supreme Court majority. As just one example, all of the debates we have had about healthcare reform--the absence of a single payer component, etc--become beside the point if only one judge, Anthony Kennedy (a Reagan appointee) votes with the team he usually votes with. And that is the sad, boring, and absolutely uninspiring truth.

Finally, I will not choose between Ramona and Quinn. I think the world is made just that much better if they both continue to express their views. I hope they do it here; I don't want to have to link to anymore websites just to get a smattering of views.

by Bruce Levine on Mon, 05/21/2012 - 8:37am

"And let us all say..."

Especially to the boring parts, which are essential.

by Peter Schwartz on Mon, 05/21/2012 - 8:50am

President Obama, like FDR before him, is not the way to move mountains. That's the job of each and every one of us. Let us look at ourselves in the mirror, and let us ask ourselves what we have done lately to make this world a better place.

Perfect. Greatly appreciate.

by Aunt Sam on Mon, 05/21/2012 - 10:36am

and let us ask ourselves what we have done lately to make this world a better place.

REALLY? What have you done to stop the drone attacks to make the world a better place? Is anybody listening to you?

What have you done to stop the corporate takeover of America?

All I've seen and heard from the mutual admiration society, is blame those who don't drink the koolaid.

Our forefathers ran people out of the country. Tar and feathered

Some today are much like those who didnt want to piss off the crown; "please King George, honor our wishes".

Our current political structure, just as King George did; they laugh at the naivety.

Those in power don't give a crap about you or I

We are nothing but sheeple to be fleeced.

History provides a clear record; there have always been masters and slaves.

Are you a master?

by Resistance on Mon, 05/21/2012 - 1:01pm

Resistance,

You are annoying, but I have no problem if you keep posting. But here you are asking other people--again--what they have done to stop drone attacks, to stop corporate takeovers of the country, etc.

And so I ask you who consistently mocks and chides just about all whom you correspond with, who are you and what have you done besides posting attacks of your brothers and sisters on dagblog?

by Bruce Levine on Mon, 05/21/2012 - 1:21pm

I returned the question back to the original poser , but of course you didn't notice.

Then you ask for my creds, For what reason? So you can find fault with me, because my words sting or annoy?

If you must know, I'm a lowly carpenter.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qii499Pfwc0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEgVI-IKpqk&feature=related

Don't forget him. If you confront him, then he's out of a job."

by Resistance on Mon, 05/21/2012 - 2:02pm

I've never met a "lowly carpenter." I'm proud most times I'm in a room with a bunch of carpenters, in fact. So I believe your answer is non-responsive. Never mind.

by Bruce Levine on Mon, 05/21/2012 - 2:05pm

Logically, I agree with what Ramona et al. have written. It's just not logical to even consider not voting for Obama in November.

However, I'm reminded of what a certain Vulcan once will have said:

Logic is the beginning of wisdom… not the end.

Those who don't understand Ramona's logic haven't begun down that path of wisdom. Then there are those who understand the logic but still believe that an illogical solution is better. My logical nature has a hard time with this, but I'm also reminded of what Shaw wrote:

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.

I often consider Quinn (and a few others here) to be very unreasonable (and I hope he takes that as a compliment it is intended to be). So, while I still don't accept the "illogical" solution, I do not consider it stupid.

by Verified Atheist on Mon, 05/21/2012 - 8:42am

So, while I still don't accept the "illogical" solution, I do not consider it stupid.

NO what is stupid, is those who continue to do the same thing, over and over, and expect a different result

The problem in this country is; Dumbass Democrats support the capitalist class, that wishes to keep us subservient and oppressed.

(Consider the issue below, is only about labor and not how we go to war)

“The very moment a workingman begins to do his own thinking he understands the paramount issue, parts company with the capitalist politician and falls in line with his own class on the political battlefield.

Deny it as may the cunning capitalists who are clear-sighted enough to perceive it, or ignore it as may the torpid workers who are too blind and unthinking to see it, the struggle in which we are engaged today is a class struggle, and as the toiling millions come to see and understand it and rally to the political standard of their class, they will drive all capitalist parties of whatever name into the same party, and the class struggle will then be so clearly revealed that the hosts of labor will find their true place in the conflict and strike the united and decisive blow that will destroy slavery and achieve their full and final emancipation.

What the workingmen of the country are profoundly interested in is the private ownership of the means of production and distribution, the enslaving and degrading wage-system in which they toil for a pittance at the pleasure of their masters and are bludgeoned, jailed or shot when they protest — this is the central, controlling, vital issue of the hour, and neither of the old party platforms has a word or even a hint about it.

As a rule, large capitalists are Republicans and small capitalists are Democrats, but workingmen must remember that they are all capitalists, and that the many small ones, like the fewer large ones, are all politically supporting their class interests, and this is always and everywhere the capitalist class.

The Republican and Democratic parties, or, to be more exact, the Republican-Democratic party, represent the capitalist class in the class struggle. They are the political wings of the capitalist system and such differences as arise between them relate to spoils and not to principles.”

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Eugene_V._Debs

Is it any wonder the American people got the “New Deal”

This generation, betrayed those who came before, They accepted the thirty pieces of silver, the Capitalist class gave out to those, who will betray the working class

Idiots who allowed NAFTA and continue to buy Non American goods, then wonder; WHERE ARE THE JOBS? DOH!!

“The united vote of those who toil and have not will vanquish those who have and toil not, and solve forever the problems of democracy.”

We outnumber them; idiots

NEWS FLASH

The capitalist democrats abandoned the labor movement

by Resistance on Mon, 05/21/2012 - 9:47am

In the News

Russia plays weak hand in Palestine
Russia plays weak hand in Palestine

submitted by PeraclesPlease 8 months ago

The intra-Palestinian meeting in Moscow has precedent

Russia's hosted such meetings in the past, most recently Feb 2019

Russia has long lamented the US' "monopolization" of the peace process & tried to carve out a niche for itself: mediating among the disunited Palestinians/2
— Hanna Notte (@HannaNotte) February 29, 2024

Read the article at https://twitter.com/HannaNotte/status/1763116222256701787

Add new comment
Mother Jones is Reaching out to Alternative Party Voters
Mother Jones is Reaching out to Alternative Party Voters

submitted by HSG 9 months ago

Here's what I told them: https://halginsberg.com/vote-for-jill-stein-again/

Read the article at https://halginsberg.com/vote-for-jill-stein-again/

2 comments

Add new comment
Controversial Brazil law curbing Indigenous rights comes...
Controversial Brazil law curbing Indigenous rights comes into force

submitted by artappraiser 11 months ago

Controversial Brazil law curbing Indigenous rights comes into force https://t.co/pCoDg05irX
— Gareth Harris (@garethharr) December 28, 2023

Read the article at https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/dec/28/brazil-law-indigenous-land-rights-claim-time-marker?CMP=share_btn_tw

1 comment

Add new comment
Security Alert: U.S. Embassy Port-au-Prince, Haiti (...
Security Alert: U.S. Embassy Port-au-Prince, Haiti (December 25, 2023)

submitted by artappraiser 11 months ago

Location: U.S. Embassy and residential compounds

Events: Heavy gunfire is occuring around the area of the U.S. Embassy and residential compounds adjacent to the Trutier area of Tabarre. All Embassy personnel have been instructed to remain indoors and shelter-in-place until further notice. All others should avoid the area.

Actions to take:

Avoid the area;

Avoid demonstrations and any large gatherings of people;

Do not attempt to drive through roadblocks; and

If you encounter a roadblock, turn around and get to a safe area.

Read the article at https://ht.usembassy.gov/security-alert-u-s-embassy-port-au-prince-haiti-december-25-2023/

3 comments

Add new comment
Pakistan Is Creating the World’s Next Refugee Crisis
Pakistan Is Creating the World’s Next Refugee Crisis

submitted by artappraiser 11 months ago

By The Editorial Board @ Bloomberg.com, December 8, 2023

A mass expulsion of Afghan migrants could destabilize the region and fuel radicalization. The West should pressure Islamabad to change course.

Read the article at https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2023-12-08/pakistan-s-expulsion-of-afghan-refugees-risks-another-crisis

6 comments

Add new comment
Internet shut down in Chad
Internet shut down in Chad

submitted by artappraiser 11 months ago

All eyes on #Chad right now
Chad has two internet trunks coming into the country: One from the Red Sea via Sudan; the other from Cameroon. Not possible for the totality of the country's internet network to be shut unless done centrally. A lot of rumors swirling; few facts. https://t.co/N6bDJZ2ixO

Read the article at https://x.com/_hudsonc/status/1732891968709992511?s=20

2 comments

Add new comment
[Economy] where Joe's success falls short
[Economy] where Joe's success falls short

submitted by PeraclesPlease 11 months ago

Read the article at

3 comments

Add new comment
[CRIME News] 3 loss-prevention employees in Macy’s across...
[CRIME News] 3 loss-prevention employees in Macy’s across the street from Philadelphia City Hall stabbed

submitted by artappraiser 11 months ago

BREAKING: Three loss prevention employees in Macy’s across the street from Philadelphia City Hall stabbed, one of them has died from stab wounds, @PhillyPolice sources tell me. Police converged on the store as the three workers were rushed to Jefferson Hospital. pic.twitter.com/4U1eKycL4W

Read the article at https://x.com/KeeleyFox29/status/1731713272942940365?s=20

38 comments

Add new comment
Former U.S. Ambassador Arrested, Charged With Working As...
Former U.S. Ambassador Arrested, Charged With Working As Secret Agent For Cuba

submitted by artappraiser 11 months ago

Former US Ambassador Arrested, Charged With Working As Secret Agent For Cuba https://t.co/LDwo4ZJI1K
— HuffPost (@HuffPost) December 4, 2023

Read the article at https://www.huffpost.com/entry/manuel-rocha-ambassador-arrested-cuba_n_656d1e2ae4b028b0f3d07478

Add new comment
[War in Israel, Chapter II] UNRWA under scrutiny
[War in Israel, Chapter II] UNRWA under scrutiny

submitted by artappraiser 11 months ago

[Chapter I news is HERE, Oct. 7 til today]

You don’t get it.
It’s not about an UNRWA teacher who held an Israeli kid hostage in his house.
It’s all about how for 75 years you have destroyed the future of generations of Palestinians, including my family.
My cousins in Arab countries are still not citizens - not even the… https://t.co/nv6anubGhc
— George Deek (@GeorgeDeek) December 2, 2023

Note 'Community Notes' attached to UNWRA's statement.

Read the article at https://x.com/GeorgeDeek/status/1731020551328579863?s=20

58 comments

Add new comment
Maduro, Under Pressure, Holds Vote to Annex Territory From...
Maduro, Under Pressure, Holds Vote to Annex Territory From a Neighbor

submitted by artappraiser 11 months ago

Imperialism for me but not for thee?

It's wild that Venezuela is now holding a vote on whether 2/3 of Guyana actually belongs to them! Analysts suggest that Modoru may want military action to pump up his sinking popularity.

Could we have a war in South America?!?

"The people who live in Essequibo are largely… pic.twitter.com/QvMEjkkgwy

Read the article at https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/03/world/americas/maduro-vote-essequibo-guyana.html

6 comments

Add new comment
[Where is the GOP headed?] Divisions leave Florida’s House...
[Where is the GOP headed?] Divisions leave Florida’s House Republicans powerless

submitted by artappraiser 12 months ago

The lack of a cohesive delegation has allowed attention-seeking lawmakers to act on their own.

McCarthy: “You have [Rep. Matt] Gaetz, who belongs in jail…”

Gaetz: “Tough words from a guy who sucker punches people in the back. The only assault I committed was against Kevin’s fragile ego.”https://t.co/LctPuz6Pcf

Read the article at https://www.politico.com/news/2023/11/29/divisions-leave-floridas-house-republicans-powerless-00129200

10 comments

Add new comment
‘She got so mad at me’: book on the ‘Squad’ details AOC-...
‘She got so mad at me’: book on the ‘Squad’ details AOC-Pelosi clashes

submitted by artappraiser 12 months ago

By Martinn Pengelly in Washington DC for TheGuardian.com, Nov. 30

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez tells Ryan Grim life in Congress ‘completely transformed’ after Democratic leader stepped down

Read the article at https://www.theguardian.com/books/2023/nov/30/squad-book-aoc-nancy-pelosi?CMP=share_btn_tw

15 comments

Add new comment
US health insurers Humana, Cigna in talks to merge -source
US health insurers Humana, Cigna in talks to merge -source

submitted by artappraiser 12 months ago

@ Reuters, Nov. 29

Read the article at https://www.reuters.com/markets/deals/us-health-insurers-humana-cigna-talks-merge-wsj-2023-11-29/

3 comments

Add new comment
Central Africa’s dinosaur regimes and the art of coup-...
Central Africa’s dinosaur regimes and the art of coup-proofing

submitted by artappraiser 12 months ago

"Both the AU and the intl community place more weight on whether elections are held than whether they are free and fair. Sanctions/expulsions occur when there is a coup but not necessarily when elections are rigged or if an “institutional coup” occurs." https://t.co/m9dNimJP0D
— Cameron Hudson (@_hudsonc) November 28, 2023

Read the article at https://africanarguments.org/2023/11/central-africas-dinosaur-regimes-and-the-art-of-coup-proofing/

Add new comment

From the Readers

Creative corner

From the Dagbloggers

Hits of the Day