I Guess PBO And The Dems Don't Really Want To Take Back The House In 2014.....

[global1]

I know a bunch of people that are upset with this proposed budget that messes with SS and Medicare. Because PBO is never running again - they know that threatening him with not voting for him won't work. They are, however, calling the WH and saying that because of his messing with SS and Medicare - they are going to sit out the 2014 election.

PBO wants real bad to win back the House. It will help him immensely with respect to his completing his Presidency and accomplishing much of what he set out to do. It will help his legacy.

The only way to get PBO to back off on SS and Medicare is to call the WH and say that you are going to sit out the 2014 election. It will be like 2010 all over again. I don't think he wants that to happen. I'm thinking that this is the only way to get him to do what he promised and not give away our futures to compromise with Repugs that only want to protect the rich and the corporations.

[MineralMan]

1. Uh, that's going to be up to the voters in every congressional

district, not the President. What are your plans in your district to make that happen?

House Majority in 2014!

[sabrina 1]

32. If this president touches SS, and if Democrats go along with it, do you need to ask

what will happen? Democrats will be mobilized like the never were before, and every last Democrat who supports this will be not only be challenged with a Real Democrat, they will lose, because contrary to Paul Ryan, and apparently this president, SS still is the third rail of politics.

I will tell you what I will be doing in my district, I will be working to throw out any person with a 'd' after their name who exposed themselves as a Third Wayer or imposter by supporting cuts to SS. I will be working with the newly formed huge coalition of liberal and union groups to rid this government of Wall St. pretenders.

In fact, the best thing that could happen to the Dem Party right now is for us to find out once and for all who is and who is not a real Democrat. No real Democrat will ever, ever vote to cut SS.

In a way, this could help immensely to finally, once and for all, to unite every democrat to back REAL democrats put forward by the people, not by the party leadership and clear out this congress of imposters.

I, nor any other real Democrat will ever, ever support a fake Democrat. And the very best way to recognize a fade Democrat is to see where they stand on SS.

I am actually excited about the prospects for a real Democratic Congress in 2014 especially about the huge coalition that was formed before the election just in case this should happen. We are ready this time, no longer fooled or willing to tolerate the excuses and the threats. We've been there, time to move on.

[MineralMan]

33. OK. All I am asking issues

that everyone get involved now. If you can get a real progressive elected in your district, all the better.

[sabrina 1]

36. One thing that will guarantee that is if the current Rep votes to cut SS whether s/he is

a Democrat or not.

[villager]

2. But unassailable Democratic majorities strip away their excuses for running from a progressive....

...agenda!

[Marr]

19. Remember the maneuvering Reid did in 2006?

It was not easy to push a corporate agenda with majorities like that.

[bvar22]

31. The LAST thing this White House wants is a veto proof majority in the Senate,

and Progressive majorities in The House.

The definitive expose of this strategy happened in the Arkansas Democratic Primary of 2010 where the White House and the Democratic party leadership threw their full support behind Blue Dog Blanche Lincoln when she fell behind the grass roots, Pro-LABOR, Pro-Public Option popular Democrat Lt Gov Bill Halter in the Democratic Primary, 2010.

The UNIONS and the Grass Roots did EXACTLY what the Party leadership had asked to "give them a Congress that would pass Obama's "liberal" agenda.
When WE started winning, "THEY" came to town with BIG MONEY and steamrolled the grass roots, forever putting an end to the LIE that The Party leadership WANTS 60 votes.


I KNOW, because I was THERE,
working to give President Obama a "Progressive Majority".
It pissed off everyone when our worst obstruction wasn't the Republicans, or the Union Busting Conservatives.
No.
Our WORST enemy turned our to be the White House and Bill Clinton.


[White House support for Wicked Witch of Arkansas who crowed about killing the Public Option

"The Arkansas primary fight illuminates some unpleasant though vital truths about the Democratic establishment "

"So what did the Democratic Party establishment do when a Senator who allegedly impedes their agenda faced a primary challenger who would be more supportive of that agenda? They engaged in full-scale efforts to support Blanche Lincoln. Bill Clinton traveled to Arkansas to urge loyal Democrats to vote for her, bashing liberal groups for good measure. Obama recorded an ad for Lincoln which, among other things, were used to tell African-American primary voters that they should vote for her because she works for their interests. The entire Party infrastructure lent its support and resources to Lincoln — a Senator who supposedly prevents Democrats from doing all sorts of Wonderful, Progressive Things which they so wish they could do but just don’t have the votes for.

<snip>

What happened in this race also gives the lie to the insufferable excuse we’ve been hearing for the last 18 months from countless Obama defenders: namely, if the Senate doesn’t have 60 votes to pass good legislation, it’s not Obama’s fault because he has no leverage over these conservative Senators. It was always obvious what an absurd joke that claim was; the very idea of The Impotent, Helpless President, presiding over a vast government and party apparatus, was laughable. But now, in light of Arkansas, nobody should ever be willing to utter that again with a straight face. Back when Lincoln was threatening to filibuster health care if it included a public option, the White House could obviously have said to her: if you don’t support a public option, not only will we not support your re-election bid, but we’ll support a primary challenger against you. Obama’s support for Lincoln did not merely help; it was arguably decisive, as The Washington Post documented today:"

<much more>

http://www.salon.com/2010/06/10/lincoln_6/

Ed Schultz on Obama support for Lincoln
http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/ed-schultz-if-it-wasnt-labor-barack-obama-

It will be a LONG time before the Grass Roots and Organized LABOR forget the betrayal in the Arkansas Democratic Primary, 2010.

[HiPointDem]

34. I wish I could recommend individual posts.

The definitive expose of this strategy happened in the Arkansas Democratic Primary of 2010 where the White House and the Democratic party leadership threw their full support behind Blue Dog Blanche Lincoln when she fell behind the grass roots, Pro-LABOR, Pro-Public Option popular Democrat Lt Gov Bill Halter in the Democratic Primary, 2010.

The UNIONS and the Grass Roots did EXACTLY what the Party leadership had asked to "give them a Congress that would pass Obama's "liberal" agenda.

When WE started winning, "THEY" came to town with BIG MONEY and steamrolled the grass roots, forever putting an end to the LIE that The Party leadership WANTS 60 votes.

Our WORST enemy turned our to be the White House and Bill Clinton.

and not the only time it's happened.

i've almost gotten to the point where i believe the democratic & republican leadership collude with each other to pass the presidency back and forth.

mccain & romney, the best the pubs could field? oh, really?

i don't believe it.

[Samantha]

37. Bill Clinton is a New Dem (or Third Way if you prefer) Democrat

President Obama is a New Dem.

I am a liberal. While I like both of them, I prefer a classic Dem, or Old School, or FDR Dem, whichever term you prefer, to have the majority. And I do know the Fix the Debt crowd are gearing up financially to lend campaign support to any Dem that supports the Grand Bargain (with the Chained COLA) and the austerity (read sequester) initiatives to soften the impact voter retaliation will have on their re-election efforts.

We have got a real fight on our hands.

Sam

[graham4anything]

3. Why this will insure the house turns democratic, not the other way around. Simple as ABC 123

There are many more republcians in the house than democratic house.

Therefore, logic dictates that the white seniors, the ONE and ONLY demographic the republicans have will vote AGAINST THE VERY HOUSE MEMBERS that are in their districts all through the red states

The democratic candidates would win and then we can easily remove all guns and bullets from the streets.

Why is it that social security seems more important than the insanity of 35 people a day dying from bullets in the streets and never reaching senior age?

[djean111]

6. It is ALL important. We are not making a choice between the two issues.

We are not having to choose between social security and gun legislation.
Being told that cutting Social Security has anything to do with the deficit or closing tax loopholes is another false equivalence.
It is not like Washington is going to listen to us about anything.
And it actually is possible to be upset about more than one thing at a time.

[Bake]

13. Easily remove all guns and bullets from the streets?

Never. Going. To. Happen. Not even by a Dem majority house. Too many Dems are opposed to it.

Social Security, on the other hand, hits EVERY Democrat right in the pocketbook.

But we know where YOUR priorities are.

Bake

[Arcanetrance]

27. Do you realize how many would die without social security

[Autumn]

35. So it has to be one or the other? SS or gun control?

If that's the case I'm sticking with SS.

[premium]

41. You said remove all guns and bullets from the streets.

Funniest thing I've heard today.
NOT. GOING. TO. HAPPEN!

[truebluegreen]

4. That would be too awkward, wouldn't it?

Can't have a Dim president and big majorities in both houses, what would the excuse be then?

[Bake]

14. "Dim" was a typo, right?

I mean, it WAS a typo, right?

Otherwise, you're in the wrong place. This is the Democratic Underground.

Bake

[truebluegreen]

17. Lighten up.

And no, it wasn't a typo. It is my way of distinguishing between my kind of Democrats (the FDR sort) and the rest. If others use it in a different context, I don't care. It seems appropriate to me.

And the Grand Bargainer in Chief looks like he is earning the sobriquet.

p.s. does my spelling and/or vocabulary say anything to you?

[Bake]

23. With the clarification, nah, no prob at all.

And I'll agree that some of our elected "leaders" are merely "dim" copies of real Democrats!



Bake

[truebluegreen]

24. We're good then. Thanks.

[truebluegreen]

26. P.S. sorry for my harsh tone

I'm really, really p.o.ed right now.

[BlueStreak]

5. This issue is not whether chained CPI is a good or bad thing. The issue is ...

Why is this the ONLY thing Obama or any other elected Democrat will discuss to extend Social Security's solvency?

One obvious remedy is to raise the income cap, making it less of a regressive system -- although still extremely regressive.

Another option is to take a small increase in the contribution rate.

Why is cutting benefits the only thing allowed for discussion?

The answer to that will be exactly the same reason that there could be no discussion of the public option.

Anybody who thinks Obama, Hillary or any other national Democrat is on our side is nuts.

[forestpath]

8. +1

[byeya]

10. +2

[newfie11]

30. +1000000000000000000000000000000000

[bvar22]

38. If you wanted to "Raise the Cap",

you should have voted for THIS guy:

You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their promises.
[font size=5 color=green]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]

[forestpath]

7. If Obama cared about winning back the House he wouldn't have done this in the first place.

I've told my (Democratic) congressmen numerous times that if they vote to cut SS or Medicare I won't vote for them again, but considering that one of them (Warner) voted against a $250 stipend for SS recipients in a 2010 when there was no SS COLA and led the "Gang of 6," I know they either don't care or can't wait to get their hands on SS and Medicare either.

Obama is determined to do this whatever the cost. It's what his rich friends want and that's who he listens to.

[truebluegreen]

20. +1000

[Moses2SandyKoufax]

9. Look on the bright side....

Not winning back a majority in the house will give the president and his cheerleaders a convenient excuse for not accomplishing anything in his 2nd term.

[forestpath]

11. Yep...and I bet he'll never again utter the word "bipartisan" either.

[Moses2SandyKoufax]

15. Three years from now,

his sycophants will be telling us that the president really wanted to be a liberal and advance a progressive agenda, but couldn't because the republicans blocked him. Then they'll blame "the professional left", because despite being constantly shit on, we didn't work hard enough to get lame blue dogs (who would have joined the repubs in obstruction, see: Lincoln, Blanche) elected to congress.

[forestpath]

16. So true.

[truebluegreen]

22. +1000

[bvar22]

39. They will try,

...but we will know better.

SEE: Arkansas Democratic Primary, 2010

We worked HARD to replace the DINO Blanche Lincoln and give Obama a Pro-LABOR, Pro-Health Care mainstream, Popular Democrat.
The UNIONS and the Grass Roots did EXACTLY what the Party leadership had asked to "give them a Congress that would pass Obama's "liberal" agenda.

When WE started winning, "THEY" came to town with BIG MONEY and steamrolled the grass roots, forever putting an end to the LIE that The Party leadership WANTS are Progressive Majorities in Congress.
The Democratic Party Power Brokers would RATHER have a Pro-Business REPUBLICAN holding a seat in Congress than a Pro-LABOR Democrat.


I KNOW, because I was THERE,
working to give President Obama a "Progressive Majority".
It pissed off everyone when our worst obstruction wasn't the Republicans, or the Union Busting Conservatives.
No.
Our WORST enemy turned our to be the White House and Bill Clinton.


[White House support for Wicked Witch of Arkansas who crowed about killing the Public Option

"The Arkansas primary fight illuminates some unpleasant though vital truths about the Democratic establishment "

"So what did the Democratic Party establishment do when a Senator who allegedly impedes their agenda faced a primary challenger who would be more supportive of that agenda? They engaged in full-scale efforts to support Blanche Lincoln. Bill Clinton traveled to Arkansas to urge loyal Democrats to vote for her, bashing liberal groups for good measure. Obama recorded an ad for Lincoln which, among other things, were used to tell African-American primary voters that they should vote for her because she works for their interests. The entire Party infrastructure lent its support and resources to Lincoln — a Senator who supposedly prevents Democrats from doing all sorts of Wonderful, Progressive Things which they so wish they could do but just don’t have the votes for.

<snip>

What happened in this race also gives the lie to the insufferable excuse we’ve been hearing for the last 18 months from countless Obama defenders: namely, if the Senate doesn’t have 60 votes to pass good legislation, it’s not Obama’s fault because he has no leverage over these conservative Senators. It was always obvious what an absurd joke that claim was; the very idea of The Impotent, Helpless President, presiding over a vast government and party apparatus, was laughable. But now, in light of Arkansas, nobody should ever be willing to utter that again with a straight face. Back when Lincoln was threatening to filibuster health care if it included a public option, the White House could obviously have said to her: if you don’t support a public option, not only will we not support your re-election bid, but we’ll support a primary challenger against you. Obama’s support for Lincoln did not merely help; it was arguably decisive, as The Washington Post documented today:"

<much more>

http://www.salon.com/2010/06/10/lincoln_6/

Ed Schultz on Obama support for Lincoln
http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/ed-schultz-if-it-wasnt-labor-barack-obama-

It will be a LONG time before the Grass Roots and Organized LABOR forget the betrayal in the Arkansas Democratic Primary, 2010.

[gulliver]

12. Or maybe it's just you. nt

[alcibiades_mystery]

18. Dems are well aware that they will not win back the House in 2014

The gerrymandering of 2010 is a 20 year problem. Anyone who thinks the House GOP is vulnerable to losing the House in any way, shape, or form is a political ignorant.

[BlueStreak]

28. BULLSHIT. That is just defeatist. It is only 14 freaking seats

We won almost enough seats without standing for any principles. If the party would take a stand on progressive issues, we could win another 50 seats, even with the gerrymandering.

[alcibiades_mystery]

29. Pipedreams

are amusing.

[treestar]

43. Which makes those who sat home in 2010 even more guilty

of shooting themselves in the foot. This childish foot stomping is old, we've seen the exact same thing before in 2009-2010 and now they are repeating it word for word. This is the 12,348th "betrayal." Then do not intend to help swing the country leftward at all. Saying you will not vote is giving up, not a strategy.

[Union Scribe]

44. Any data to back that up?

[treestar]

46. experience on DU

I am not wasting my time on searching old posts - there were 30000 of them in 2009-10, probably a lot more and you know well what I am talking about and that the present strategy is identical. Getting people to stay home as protest, leaving the Republicans, who really want to cut SS, to win the elections.

[Union Scribe]

47. So no, nothing to back that up.

Aren't Obama's most, er, strenuous supporters usually the ones saying DU doesn't reflect the party? Except when it's convenient to blame liberals for 2010, though no data supports that preposterous notion.

[treestar]

49. Don't care, I am simply heading off the present set of identical posts

with the fact this was all done before and anyone on DU back then can remember it. The "liberals" took credit for 2010 or why are they making the same statement about "stay home, give up, it's all hopeless, they are all corporatists" themes they had before.

We are not giving up. We will continue to fight Republicans, not enable them with this left wing blather. Any real progressive would be stupid to stay home as a "protest" that Democrats are not far enough to the left. They may not be, but there are still plenty of real right wingers to fill the vacuum.

[Marr]

21. Impossible. I've been assured here that Obama's offer to cut SS was ingenius politics.

See, he's made the Republicans look terrible. Or something.

[jsr]

40. Terrorizing the elderly and disabled is typically considered a grandmaster-level move

according to 99-D chess experts.

[L0oniX]

25. We are going to primary any mutha fucka who helps put SS on the table.

If you wanted to win the house back then you wouldn't be putting any SS changes on the table ...fucking period! Damn the corporate owners.

[treestar]

42. Did not work in 2010

And is not going to work again. Just go home and sit it out then.

[JHB]

45. No, don't sit out 2014! That simply helps whatever you're 'protesting'.

Let your representative and senators know that you are keeping an eye on how they vote on this, and that will affect how you vote (and donate) in 2014.

Obama isn't running in 2014, so in the end it doesn't matter a whole lot to him if you or those people sit it out. Put pressure on where it may do some good.

Sitting out is not a protest, it's acquiescence to the status quo, which isn't exactly the intent of the sitter, is it?

[global1]

50. I Think Obama Does Care About Winning Back The House In 2014.....

His legacy is at stake. If the Dems lose the House again - he has no chance at getting the things done that he wanted to in order to secure his place in history - not only as the first black president - but a great president.

He is already kind of campaigning for winning back the House.

So I think it is a real threat to him - to have us Dem voters say that we will sit this one out if they go ahead and mess with SS & Medicare.

I don't really like admitting that I'd sit out the 2014 midterms - but we have to send a message to them. This is the only way to get through. '

Status quo isn't that bad if they don't mess with SS & Medicare.

If they do mess with them - it really isn't status quo is it? They promised not to mess with them and seem to be going back on their word. They need to get the message we're sending.

These programs are long standing and they affect the bulk of the population. It's time they did their jobs and stood up to the 1% and the corporations. There are better ways of fixing things without dumping on the poor, the seniors, the sick, students and aiding in wiping out the middle class.

Close corporate loopholes. Make the rich pay their fair share. Raise the cap.

[JVS]

48. A lot of 3rd rails being peed on: SS, gun control.

If I didn't know better, I'd think it's an attempt to revive the republicans.