Mr. Axelrod, I'll be blunt...

[I hate liars]

I'm sure that many of you, like I, receive regular requests for donations from OfA. The latest one to hit my inbox burned my behind because it originated from the desk of David "screw the base" Axelrod, and the insulting "I'll be blunt" subject line instantly reminded me of the moment in last Wednesday's debate that reflected what I like least about the President - his proclivity for giving ground before the negotiation has started.

Since I know the response I typed back to the marketing automation robot at OfA won't be read by human eyes, I wanted to share it here:

Mr Axelrod, I’ll be blunt. When I heard the President say in his first debate with Mitt Romney that they essentially see the Social Security situation the same way, and that he sees a need to “tweak” the system, I vowed on the spot that I would not donate to his campaign again, for two reasons:

1. Policy: Unless the “tweak” is to eliminate the cap on Social Security wages, then we’re talking about cutting benefits (like the Orwellian “chained CPI”), raising the retirement age, or both. At a time when taxes on the rich are near historic lows and “defense” spending has spun out of control, that’s not just bad policy, it’s also immoral.

2. Politics: On what planet does it make sense to minimize perceived differences between you and your opponent, unless your goal is to scare the Democratic base into believing that you also want to privatize Social Security?

The President and his campaign need to figure out whose side they are on, and make that choice clear to voters. Until then, I’ll hold onto my wallet.

If the election were closer and I was convinced that battling the Koch Bros' bottomless wallet made sense, I'd probably donate again. But I can't imagine that a lot of other Obama supporters weren't also put off by the President's statement about Social Security, and by the kind of hamfisted outreach that I received earlier. [/rant off]

[lamp_shade]

1. Gee... thanks for sharing.

Horseshoe up your fanny?
I get at least a dozen a day. I don't get my knickers in a twist. I give what I can as often as I can.

[GeorgeGist]

15. Whatever. nt

[OldDem2012]

2. Whatever. nt.

[upaloopa]

3. I think the President can win without your money.

And I for one am glad because if Romney wins we can kiss Soc Sec good by.

[FSogol]

4. Dear Mr. Axelrod, Since Repubs and Trolls get upset when the Democrats raise more money

than Republicans, I decided to send you another $25.

Best of luck,
FSogol



PS. Anyway you could talk Skinner into bringing back the unrec button?

[kathman-duzi]

23. ME two! I hear their lies and deceit and I can't bear it so into the contributing mode I go

a little here a little there. I cross state lines and what discretionary dollars I have for the past few months goes to OFA, DCCC, ActBlue, Daily KOS, or Common Dreams. Oh yes call bank and register voters at my farmers market too.

I just wish President Obama would take a knife to the next rumble and forget the linen napkin.
Every debate question should be answered with two words 47%, remembering the 47%, About the 47%. Knee this poser romney in the groin.

Sorry if that is too vulgar please forgive me.

[alcibiades_mystery]

5. 95%

former banned DUer of the bitter variety, back for the final stretch.

Welcome back.

[panader0]

6. unrec

[sharp_stick]

7. I really miss unrec

it didn't do much but I sure felt better when I could take a real piece of shit post.... we'll just say this one, purely as a hypothetical example mind you...and click that fucking thing into oblivion.

[patrice]

8. Speaking of "liars", that's a word that all of my rightie fascist friends've been using for months

now.

Have you analyzed and considered any/all alternative hypotheses for the scenario you claim absolute knowledge of? Feel free to demonstrate your thinking about those possibilities here, otherwise, I must consider the following hypothesis . . .

Ego inflation.

[patrice]

9. unrec & thanks for the info = I'll be sending OFA a check today.

[flamingdem]

16. +100

[Brother Buzz]

10. How about them Forty-Niners?

[nobodyspecial]

11. So, are you hoping to convince others NOT to donate

Hey, thanks for signing up and posting 35 times before urging everyone to abandon ship.

[FrenchieCat]

12. Welcome to DU, and well, isn't your post just soooo special!

so thank you for sharing!

I just gave $25.00 to the DSCC, gave $44.00 to Pres. Obama's campaign,
gave $20.00 to the DNC, and gave $5 to Move-On.org just a few minutes ago...
after reading your post!

My only wish is that the small amounts I have given throughout these elections
help our President and Democrats all over WIN! I may have a little less in bank due to it,
but at least I will know that I did all that I could.....and then just a little bit more!

I figure that I'd gladly rather pay now, as opposed to giving us all a greater chance of paying
a whole lot more in the next 4 years.


Thank you again for giving me added motivation to give...because I may have waited longer otherwise!

[flamingdem]

17. yay! nt

[jerseyjack]

26. Why would you give to the DSCC and find some of your $$ going to Blue Dogs?

There are other organizations that allow you to choose based on the record of the recepient.

[MineralMan]

13. Well, without your generous donation, the election is lost, I guess.

Too bad, that...

Thanks so much for sharing your concern with us here at DU. We didn't know. We weren't aware...

[BlueStreak]

14. The OP asks what we are fighting for (essentially)

If the President can't come up with a single thing to say about Social Security when he is standing next to a guy who will privatize it if he gets the chance, we have a problem.

It is both a POLICY and a POLITICAL problem. If Obama caught the "triangulation" disease, that will not work. This is an election where we have to draw a sharp contrast because, frankly, things aren't that great in the country right now. It is just not adequate to say "We inherited a big problem and we're making some progress, and give me 4 more years to make some more progress -- probably more progress than my opponent would make, but basically we agree on just about everything."

That is a loser. If you want our support, you have to show a contrast.

We have an opponent who is a plutocrat who will do everything in his power to continue the redistribution of wealth from the middle class to the top 0.1%. he is committed to privatizing Social Security, dismantling Medicare, and repealing the Affordable Care Act. If you cannot find clear points of distinction in that, you do not deserve to be reelected.

The good news is that Biden has an opportunity for that contrast this Thursday, and Obama has 2 more chances to see if he can identify anything he disagrees with Mr. Romney about.

[patrice]

18. OP doesn't ASK anything. OP states absolutes without asking him/herself whether they are in fact

the only explanations for what is going on with Social Security and then OP makes accusations of the worst sort against someone who is NOT A KING, thus demonstrating an intentionally, or otherwise, LIMITED understanding of our situation and the CONGRESSIONAL processes by means of which what OP putatively desires (and that which we are supposed to assume s/he desires more than s/he desires defeat of President Obama) will or will not be accomplished.

Fail.

[OldDem2012]

21. Check today's Gallup Poll...the REAL one that has Obama up by 5 pts...

...and get back to us about "contrasts".

[BlueStreak]

44. That's a 7-day poll, which is half before the debate

The 3-day poll, and many other recent polls, indicate a serious problem. And the problem is vagueness and an inability to call Romney on his lies. If you don't call him out when you have a chance to do so face to face, it frankly doesn't matter very much what you put into ads. That is seen as cowardly.

[OldDem2012]

54. I'm reading the exact opposite from posters who have done their homework....

....on the 7-day Gallup poll. You see the President's debate response as cowardice and I see it as trapping Mitt in a web of his own lies.

To be honest, I see your behavior as cowardice. If you want to curl up on the floor in the fetal position and crap your pants in abject fear, feel free.

Grow a set.

[BlueStreak]

57. Rationalization

There are a bunch of people who don't want to deal with reality. I'm not suggesting the thing is lost or that anybody should give up, but we have to face the real problems.

We have a candidate who has done a very good job, deserves reelection, values honesty and integrity, and has genuinely tried to approach his opponents in a fair-minded, cooperative way.

He is running against a machine and a candidate where none of that works. Or to mix up some metaphors, you don't take lecture notes to a knife fight.

[woo me with science]

89. Excellent post.

[Waiting For Everyman]

19. Because taking a stand on an attitude has worked so well in the past. (3 decades)

Better known as "sending a message" with one's vote or support, or lack thereof.

You are part of the problem. That is how nitwits get elected in the first place, to do the damage they have done.

I suppose Mittens renovating SS as he sees fit would be ok with you... because that's what your attitude results in.

[patrice]

20. Thank YOU! It's that grandstanding on an ATTITUDE, KNOWING that there are little or no process

underpinings to make that opinion manifest in concrete legislation or policy, that allows them to play this fucking game over and over again.

"Daddy, chase the evil clown out from under my bed" while the house is burning down - and - people will punish him and others over and over again for not telling them what they want to hear despite what the truths are, which, in this case, are truths about how we have to get out there and work our asses off for a Democratic Congress, instead of expecting daddy to kiss the boo-boo and, presto-chango, make it all better.

He's NOT a fucking king.

We are either the ones we have been waiting for or we ARE our own WORST enemies.

[TheKentuckian]

102. It doesn't take a king to say "The only way that happens is over my veto".

That is is a clearly enumerated power. Modern Presidents, including the present one take substantial liberties beyond such clarity.
The "king" stuff is a lazy crutch of deflection.

If you think a veto is the stuff of kings then you'll have to take it up with either the framers or those in your former territory that ratified, I guess.

Having the will or desire to do when entrusted with the power in the cause of the literal well being of the American people isn't fueled by any thing like royalty either. It is good, right, and should be absolutely demanded.

[Avalux]

22. Do you plan to vote for Obama? Just wondering. n/t

[spanone]

24. i hate......

[IMG][/IMG]

[BlueMTexpat]

25. I'll be blunt too. Unrec

[mzmolly]

27. Bookmarking,

so I can track my alert.

[Logical]

30. LOL, really? Why. Based on what TOS violation????

[mzmolly]

32. Do you consider the OP, supportive of our nominee?

I don't.

[Logical]

33. Well, he is not donating anymore. Said nothing about not voting for Obama. And your alert must....

have failed so I guess you can remove the bookmark.

[mzmolly]

34. Do you think most trolls

are foolish enough to say "I'm not voting for Obama!?" Or, do you think they just post bullshit about their violated purity standards, in an attempt to discourage with constant, negative chatter? ... I think the later.

[Logical]

37. Well, if he/she is a troll it will come out soon. I prefer to listen to different opinions. nt

[mzmolly]

38. I prefer to win

elections. I'd tune into Faux "news" if I was interested in entertaining differing opinions.

We're supposed to support our nominee, post primary season.

[Logical]

39. You really think a single person posting on the DU about not donating to Obama is going......

to cost us the election?

How did the alert turn out for you??

[mzmolly]

41. I think several people, constantly posting negative shit

could have an impact, in a close election. Must be that Skinner agrees, or there would be no need for him to clarify his like position. See my sig-line for more info.

The alert was 50-50. One troll on the jury lamented that the alerter must be an "Obama lover."

Thanks for asking.

[LadyHawkAZ]

77. I hope you alerted on that juror?

I think Admin ought to take a look at that person.

[mzmolly]

78. I don't know how to alert on a juror.

[LadyHawkAZ]

91. At the bottom of your PM with the jury results

there's an "Alert abuse" button.

[mzmolly]

92. Good to know.

Thank you!

[LadyHawkAZ]

94. You're most welcome!

[OldDem2012]

56. Well done! Thanks! nt.

[woo me with science]

87. Here is your Third Way approach, folks.

The arguments for silence fall apart on their face, yet they are repeated like a mantra. And when people don't comply, they become threats.

This is how the right wing grabs control of the narrative...by sheer repetition and the constant mantra that nothing but passivity to the right wing agenda is feasible or possible, even when there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

This whole issue is very helpful in exposing the real motives of the Third Way for Democrats who might still be unsure of their real motives. I can think of very few issues where there is MORE support, both morally AND in the electorate, for the liberal position.....yet the mantra remains, ludicrously, for silence and resignation.

[mzmolly]

88. Betterbelieveit!

[ashling]

28. I understand where you are coming from, though I am not quite as disgusted as you

But it does seem strange that having fought this meme that our base was "Unexcited", and getting them stoked up for the election, that he would at this late date remind them of why they were so pissed in the first place.

[Cha]

29. Then you hate Mitt Romney...

I don't know what you're going on about Social Security when there couldn't be a more clear difference between the two candidates.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021488868

[vaberella]

31. Your post is a fallacy. SS is always need of improvements. I don't see the big deal here.

Obama does not agree with negative cuts to SS and he's said so before. You're running on a half-witted meme. Get your facts and enjoy your concern trolling--not that I believe your a Dem anyway. If you are--you're just trolling to raise your ire of dissension which DU will not buy into.

[mzmolly]

36. Of course it is.

What garbage we're subjected to by so called "progressives" who have no desire to forward progressive ideals, by actually winning friggin elections. Maddening!

[PMcDee]

35. I just contributed to Obama - In your name!

[mzmolly]

43. Good idea. I'm going to double my contribution. Surely the Koch brothers are smart enough

to understand "politics" ... a shame some DU-ers don't get it.

[revolution breeze]

40. K&R n/t

[Spitfire of ATJ]

42. Let's not forget that one of the "tweaks" they are talking about is "Means Testing"...

This is where someone like John McCain who can't even remember how many houses he owns isn't getting a check for an outrageous amount that sucks money from the program and that he wouldn't even miss if it were gone.

[eridani]

45. That's bullshit. There are so few of him that eliminating their checks is utterly meaningless

Means testing = welfare = eventual destruction of Social Security. If we eliminate the FICA cap, we can't turn around and say that high earners get nothing. There is already an upper limit on payouts, and that need not change. And tax payments on SocSec income from people with other retirement earnings put a substantial amount of money back into the program.

[Romulox]

48. Nonsense. Nothing you posted is an argument as to why the wealthy shouldn't pay their fair share.

"Means testing = welfare = eventual destruction of Social Security. "

Absolute nonsense. Our tax system is based on progressive taxation--there's no logical reason why Social Security should be excluded from every other program run by the Federal Government.

[eridani]

95. I didn't say they shouldn't pay--quite the contrary. I favor scrapping the cap

Once we do that, we can't turn around and say they get noting at retirement. There is already an upper limit on yearly payout, and that need not change.

[Romulox]

96. Of course we can limit payouts to the wealthy while scrapping the cap. That's the point.

SS can and will be made more progressive. The arguments against doing so (that's welfare!) simply aren't compelling.

[eridani]

97. I'm using the term "means testing" to refer to proposals that high earners should get NOTHING

The initial benefits calculation is weighted right now to benefiting lower income people, and could be weighted even more in that direction.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

75. You know what's really sad? When one of these rich people see they are getting 5 grand a month,...

....and they just ASSUME that's how much EVERYONE gets.

[Bluenorthwest]

82. It is sadder when people spout off without actual knowledge...

Social Security's current maximum retirement benefit is $2,513 a month, half of what you imagine others are getting. I offer that any opinion you have which is built on such 'facts' needs to be regrouped after some serious study. When you foist a falsehood, then build fiction upon that to characterize others in order to support means testing Social Security, you need to get your facts in order because you will face strong opposition. And your facts are just made up on the spot, it seems.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

90. Yoo Hoo! Hello? Is this thing on? I'm talking both the husband and wife at max....

That's $5,026.

Get it?

Now calm yer mind,....find a happy place....

[JoePhilly]

46. I need to start investing in fainting couches. There's definitely a market for them.

[Waiting For Everyman]

47. "like I"

Just no. Don't do it, it's weird. "Like me". Sorry to be picky but that is very jarring.

[Romulox]

49. Wow. This thread shows some of the worst DU has to offer. NO DISCUSSION ALLOWED! nt

[ecstatic]

52. Less than 5 weeks til election. Possibly 4 SC seats

at stake. Anyone who is truly progressive would understand the urgency of the moment we're in.

It's true that President Obama had a bad night, but to try to turn his bad night into a critique on his stances is absolutely ridiculous! If you're really confused, simply google or YouTube the multiple speeches Obama has made about Medicare and Social Security.

[mzmolly]

59. Hear

hear!

[Romulox]

60. This is a message board. It's for discussion. Including discussion of the President's own words.

[mzmolly]

58. You just "discussed"

didn't you?

[Romulox]

61. Right. Not going to be shut up!

[mzmolly]

63. Not going to consider the timing of

critique, or the outcome of a Romney Presidency too strenuously, either. Let's all nitpick Obama a month before the election, & ignore the danger of a Romney Presidency. Woo hoo!

Screw the implications of who nominates four SCOTUS justices!
Screw the implications of war with Iran/Syria ... !
Screw the implications of more tax cuts for the wealthy !

We wanna talk about the lack of perfection from the President, now!

[Romulox]

64. The problem here is that you have not/can not make any link between forum posts and your

litany of horrors.

You have no evidence whatever that forum posts make any of that more likely. That's the problem.

[mzmolly]

65. The election is not over, is it? However, the mods here have established rules.

These rules include considering the "timing" of criticism. As Skinner has stated, if your goal is to tear down our nominee, do it elsewhere.

Like here: http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/*/index

Or here: http://www.topix.com/forum/us/tea-party

Or here: http://www.conservativesforum.com/

.. and so on.

https://www.google.com/search?q=conservative+discussion+board&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US fficial&client=firefox-a&safe=high

[Romulox]

68. That is not responsive to my post in any way. nt

[mzmolly]

69. Your post was a bit

silly. I did my best.

[Romulox]

70. Ridiculous. You've convinced no one of anything. nt

[mzmolly]

71. As indicated

this is Skinners board. He has established the framework for discussion. I find your defense of a new pos ter's foot stomping - telling.

[Romulox]

72. You aren't Skinner, and you're not a mod, so what are you talking about? You don't get to dictate

anything.

Get over your power trip.

[mzmolly]

73. I'm not dictating. I'm reminding.

I'd hate to see another "believer" gone .. ya know?

http://sync.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=217293&sub=trans

[Romulox]

74. Nonsense. You're attempting (ineffectually) to bully people into silence. Didn't/won't work! nt

[mzmolly]

76. When general election season begins,

DU members must support Democratic nominees ... For non-presidential contests, election season begins on Labor Day. Everyone here on DU needs to work together to elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans to all levels of American government. If you are bashing, trashing, undermining, or depressing turnout for our candidates during election season, we'll assume you are rooting for the other side.

[Romulox]

79. There's nothing in there about shared unreality. Meanwhile, you continue to bump. nt

[mzmolly]

84. Whatever the F that

means.

Share your "reality" about how much Obama sucks, somewhere else. That, is the REALITY of the TOS agreement.

[woo me with science]

85. Hear, hear!

Nice to see this nonsense exposed.

[woo me with science]

80. What swill.

What utter Third Way, McCarthyistic swill these arguments are.

Standing up for SS can only help the President. Defending SS is the moral thing to do, and also the popular thing to do.

This "shut up" nonsense grows very old.

[mzmolly]

83. Betterbelieveit!

[woo me with science]

86. You'd better believe it!

[ecstatic]

50. Fail

[GumboYaYa]

51. I agree, I am sick of them asking for my money and time when Obama will not take the time

to prepare for a debate.

[ecstatic]

53. Oh geez, Sununu got to you too?

President Obama is out every day, rallying his heart out across the country, while mitt just practices his next lie!

[INdemo]

55. When I read something like this I am reminded of

what Karl Rove said even before the primaries were over. He said."part of the Republican strategy would be to infiltrate "liberal" blogs and forums and spread their message"..Seems like we have seen a lot of that lately.

[mzmolly]

66. Sure does. And we have some old infiltrators

as well.

[AtomicKitten]

100. it's tough telling them apart

[brush]

62. Tweak

Overreact much? SS does need tweaking. Raising the cap judiciously will fund it for another 75 years. That's no secret. I think the Dems have been advocating this for years and the repugs, of course, oppose it because they want to get rid of SS entirely. If Romney wins kiss SS goodbye. You do know that, right?

[Laelth]

67. Well said. k&r n/t

-Laelth

[woo me with science]

81. K&R

We can make it politically untenable to cut Social Security. We have the power and the people on our side.

[Carolina]

93. Touche! K&R, Great Response

That SS remark and the general lack of fight pissed me off. I am holding on to my money as well!

[arely staircase]

98. i'll alert the media

eom

[AtomicKitten]

99. uh huh

[Le Taz Hot]

101. I think you gave an excellent response

and your money, of course, is yours to do with as you please. You, of course, are guilty of NO TOS violations so don't let the bullies intimidate you. And welcome to DU!

[RBInMaine]

103. There is not much purpose in this post on this board. You are over-reacting to the statement.