If we lose, I believe *this* post demonstrates why

[newthinking]

From Comments (Not Obama's, a Democrat) placed on the NBC news page declaring the winner:

"
There is a time and place for Unions and the time is over and the place is not within any of our government employee base, and I'm a Democrat that has some of the same believes as a Republican. I attribute some of the current problems We face to date because of Unions, I'm not going to hide my head in the sand and march to any piper. >>>>>>> Obama 2012
"

(Edit as I think it was being misunderstood due to grammer problems. The poster is saying they support Obama at the end, it is not an Obama Quote)

We are loosing the war of ideas by compromising and not holding to a strong and distinct message and that is reflected daily, even here on these boards , this comment reflects that.

I don't believe we will loose the Presidency. But the way we are conducting business as Democrats, mixing our message and sometimes even values, even expressing some Republican talking points in to "appeal" to "centrists, is too weak to counter the power of monitized and consistant messaging by the other forces.

We know what Republicans believe in. It is confused *Democrats*, like the one above, that will weaken our party and it's strength in the ballot box. I believe we will see more and more "cross over" as we lose on the issues, even if we manage to hold ground in many offices. And unfortunately that will have been much of our own making.

This is not a "Blame Obama" post. Hopefully it will be seen as a "Wake Up" post. We need to support Democrats, but we also need to insist and strengthen our support for *all* of primary progressive values and ideas. You know.. the ones we used to believe in with more conviction in the past. Whether that involves Unions, Teachers, Taxes, Detrimental Globalization, Environment, Safety Net, Social Security, Gender equality, LGBT rights, Democracy, Fair Economics .... all of it. We have science and history as a basis and we should never jetison the strength of our convictions based on expediency in "reaching out". Because ultimately that is a loosing proposition.

link:
http://nbcpolitics.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/06/05/12074595-nbc-news-walker-emerges-victorious-in-wisconsin-recall#comments

Search down the comments for a poster named Sam2468

[mahina]

1. I can not believe Obama said that. Show me a link or citation that is verifiable.

Please.

[mac56]

3. +1

I do not believe he said that.

[newthinking]

4. What are your referring to? And I have attached the link

http://nbcpolitics.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/06/05/12074595-nbc-news-walker-emerges-victorious-in-wisconsin-recall#comments

Search down the comments for a poster named Sam2468

[mac56]

9. Oh, the President is posting under the name Sam2468 now?!

How clever of him.

[mahina]

11. You know, Sam. Sam Obama?

[newthinking]

14. No, Come-on. The poster does not have good grammer, it is obviously their thoughts not Obama's

[mahina]

25. Was not at all obvious to me.

Maybe I'm stupid.

I know I'm grumpy and sad.

Night.

[Bjorn Against]

12. The OP does not say Obama said it

The OP was quoting a comment from the NBC news page. I can see why you would be confused with the "Obama 2012" line at the end, but that appears to me to be a part of the comment rather than an attribution.

[ZombieHorde]

2. I am not familure with that quote, but if it is being spread around, then yes, that is problematic

for liberals.

[mac56]

5. The only thing that makes it "problematic" is not challenging its validity.

Anyone can write anything and attribute it to anybody. Mark Twain told me that.

[ZombieHorde]

21. My guess is, only people who are really into politics will bother to google it.

Truth doesn't have much bearing on politics. Truth doesn't matter very much in elections.

[mahina]

26. Now that is pretty damn funny.

Thanks for the chuckle, I needed it.

[markpkessinger]

6. You need a more specific citation than "Obama 2012" . . .

I just did an exact quote advanced Google search for the phrase "There is a time and place for Unions and the time is over". The search returned a SINGLE hit: YOUR POST. So, unless you can provide a citation that anybody else can verify, I have to assume you are making shit up.

[mac56]

7. +1

[mahina]

28. Yep, I did the same.

Same results.

[uponit7771]

46. +1

[Blue_Tires]

8. well, anyone can post public comments

RWers log on and pretend to be disaffected liberals all the time...

[mahina]

20. .

.

[mahina]

10. Yeah, there is just no way that came from the President. If you copied and pasted, it was

from elsewhere. For one thing it has too many mistakes, both in concept and execution.

:BS.

[Poll_Blind]

13. Looks like a BS quote- here's what he said in 2008:

Even Obama....even Obama...wouldn't throw unions under the bus like that.

PB

[newthinking]

17. That is not an OBAMA quote. It is the words of Sams2468!!!!!!!!!

[newthinking]

31. If I might add, the fact that some folks actually believe Obama might say this shows the weakness of

the messages coming from our party.

How is it that some people here actually had to look it up? If our message of support for Unions and the values behind Unions was strong nobody would even think to need to look it up! That is part of my point. They would know that they either misread it or someone was playing a trick (It's the first) immediately.

It confuses even those who know better. Imagine the people less engaged. They might actually believe that Obama would say something like that!

That happens because we have compromised essential values too often.

[Kurovski]

15. Can't find that on the intertubes. Did he tell you this at a University of Chicago barbeque?

"We", huh?

[newthinking]

32. You did not read the full post. And the fact you had to "look it up" shows what I am saying

The message is weak.

It's late. You misread the post / quote. OK so what. Well, if our message was strong you would not even feel led to search it out. Because Union support is a strong tenent of Democrats from way back. Or is it? The message is mixed.

Imagine the less well read and the effect it has on their votes. Sure we capture some "brand loyalty", but we lose the the ability to make any real change.

[Kurovski]

34. The post I read attributed a quote to Obama. I read the full post of your first version.

Dude, you have 4! I read the post. It had initially appeared to be a bit trollish, which is weakest of all. There has subsequently been a clarification.

It took a lot of years and a lot of money to create "union" into a dirty word. We are facing many millions of dollars of lies and distortions that people will find difficult to resist. The psychological triumph of leading people to vote to their own detriment cannot be understated.

[newthinking]

36. I did not change the quote. Look at the changes,

They were all clarifying for those who did not fully read the post.

I said from the beginning that this was a "comment" posted.

I could have been clearer, but I cannot be responsible for people jumping to conclusions.

If you read further in the original I said "confused Democrats like the one above". I think people tend to skim:

"We know what Republicans believe in. It is confused *Democrats*, like the one above, that will weaken our party"

This OP and the replies have made me remember why I stopped posting and visiting for a while. I am not sure that folks have the patience to really try to understand an argument like this, and DU is the tops when it comes to calling out each other's intentions and eating their own.

[Kurovski]

39. Edit beforehand. people rely on certain things for clarity. Conclusions are jumped to for reasons.

You are being overuled by we the readers, my DU compatriot.

I ain't been here much meself lately.

And so, goodnight!

[newthinking]

40. Deleted - It posted twice

[newthinking]

41. I understand what you are saying

But interestingly, I didn't think that when I first read the comment. I understood it. I did not see any indication on MSN's site that people thought Sam was trying to create misinformation, and that site has a lot of argumentative people. I think it is DU. Not the quote, unfortunately.

[Kurovski]

45. As a monolith, we're doomed as doomed can be!!!

Once more, the original post was the issue, not your comprehension of a post on a site elsewhere. It looked like you were yanking us. But you weren't. I get it now. I got it then.

Context is...OHH, YOU! I get it...NOW you're yanking us.

[cry baby]

16. I read that quote wrong at first...I thought Obama said it

but it's a comment about the story in the comment section.

[mahina]

18. Excuse me, but are you kidding me?

What are you, 12?

Just posting it somewhere else and attributing it to the Obama campaign does not make that a credible source.

Holy smokes.

[Bjorn Against]

24. Once again nowhere in the OP is that quote attributed to Obama

The OP attributed it to a comment on the NBC message boards, nowhere was the claim made that Obama said it. The "Obama 2012" at the end was part of the quote, not an attribution.

[newthinking]

27. Please read the post again. I never said that

Man things are crazy here. Maybe I should have waited to post about this but I think people will only get more emotional and jump to more conclusions.

[ohheckyeah]

35. The original post was poorly written and

it certainly looked like the quote was being attributed to Obama. To read it as being attributed to Obama is not "crazy"......that's the way it looked with the >>>>>Obama 2012.

[newthinking]

37. That was a direct copy from the post. If you would have read further down

you would have seen that I clearly attributed it to a Democrat who posted a comment.

If I had it to do again I would have said it is not Obama in the first sentence, maybe in bold, but really should I have to? I had taken a break from this place and had forgotten how suspicious, challenging, and impatient many posters here are.

Did you read the whole thing and try to understand what I was saying? Just asking, not accusing.

[ManyShadesOf]

19. it's called Centrism

"But the way we are conducting business as Democrats, mixing our message and sometimes even values, even expressing some Republican talking points in to "appeal" to "centrists, is too weak to counter the power of monitized and consistant messaging by the other forces."

[WillyT]

22. Yeah... Those Would Be The New (S)Age Geniouses...

Not so much tho...

[Kurovski]

23. Sam is an unfocused idiot...at best.

Nothing personal.

[ibegurpard]

29. yes, he is

and that's the point the OP is trying to make....there are way too many of them out there.

[newthinking]

30. As are, unfortunately, a lot of that "mass" of people in the "Center"

That is my point. There is an entire mass of people toward the "center" that are confused. That is why a mixed message is not really the way to build more of these people into the base.

[okieinpain]

38. oh lorry, this thread is quite funny. n/t.

[StarrMatthieu]

42. If we lose, I believe *this* post demonstrates why

[IMG][/IMG]BUMPS

[Martin Eden]

43. "I don't believe we will loose the Presidency"

"loose" rhymes with juice

"lose" rhymes with booze

Sorry, but that extra 'o' is an internet per peeve of mine that I know is not a typo on your part because you also typed "loosing"

(I'm pointing this out to inform, not to berate)

BTW, nice post.

[Blaspherian]

47. Fast & Loose - Motorhead

Good tune

[Oilwellian]

44. I understood your post and agree with it

The New Democrats are not supportive of unions. They like their money, but insofar as speaking out loud in support of them, meh, not so much. The right wing propaganda machine has played an important role in turning this sentiment around as well. They've succeeded in their divide and conquer agenda and we now see centrist Democrats who are against public workers benefits. Democrats need to wake up and realize they can't support corporations and unions at the same time, especially in today's political climate. When you look at the amount of money we're up against thanks to Citizens United, the Democrats weak, wishy-washy messaging, just ain't gonna cut it if they want to win future elections.