To all those who are or will be "done" with Democrats/Obama.

[CTLawGuy]

Do you think the next Republican president would pass the type of health reform you want?
Do you think withholding your financial support would not make Dems rely even more on "corporate" contributions (a funny
concept because corporations cannot directly make contributions)?
Do you think leaving the party would not cause future Democratic nominees to become even more conservative?

Instead, get involved in primaries and throw blue dogs out by denything them the nomination.

[Kittycat]

1. How about this...

We throw Rahm Out, since he's a good reason why there are so many there to begin with. Oh wait, we can't - he's sitting comfy on Obama's shoulder, whispering in to his ear.

[Bluzmann57]

2. So in other words

You don't really have any solution, jusy a snarky comment.

[jenmito]

3. Rahm got us the majority we have. Liberal Dems. would never have won in the

states/districts the Dems. were running against Repubs. Do you want our party to be as small as the Repub. party?

[Kittycat]

29. Apparently it is, when we can't get our people to...

To vote on a major issue that is part of the Democratic Platform.

[xxqqqzme]

31. I think Howard Dean had more to do w/ the current majority

than Rahm ever did, although he was quick to take credit for it. If you worked for a progressive candidate in the '06 or '08 election you would understand that.

[JamesA1102]

41. There are those who would dispute that

and think that Dean's spending on impossible races cost the Dems several close races in '06. In my own district the Dem candidate was very close but couldn't get any money from the DNC for the final weekend because Dean was spending it elsewhere, so we lost. Luckily our GOP Congressman was caught in a scandal in '07 and we were able to win in '08.

[debbierlus]

51. That's the truth, and he was thrown under the bus by the DLC.

Rahm is responsible for the BLUE DOGS, ie converting the democratic party to republican ideals.

It is gross anyone would credit this as an accomplishment.

Disgusting, really.

[polichick]

86. +1

[brentspeak]

74. And what happened to Worm's hand-picked man in Florida's 16th?

Where is Worm's Repub-turned-Dem main-man Tim Mahoney now? Answer: NOT in the seat that a progressive could very easily have filled back in 2006 (had Worm not recruited Mahoney instead).

[madmax]

4. I will never give up on President Obama!

Your points are right on.

I seem to remember reading something along the lines of 'We The People...'

If you're disappointed get off yer fanny and do something.

If you can't do something physically due to whatever, break out the wallet.

If that's not possible, email articles and facts to friends, family, enemies and write LTTE.

No excuses.

Ok, beat me ;)

[JamesA1102]

23. Exactly right!!!

I went to my Congressman's office this week to voice my support for Healthcare reform. I posted about it here in hopes of encouraging others into similar action but all I got was indifference. It seems that most here would rather snipe from the sidelines rather than really do anything to help.

[Hekate]

27. I went to my Congresswoman's office as well, along with a couple hundred others...

I wrote about it here and got 3 replies -- although 13 Recs put it where more people could see it.

Basically, our Representative Lois Capps is a solid Dem and as an RN and former school nurse knows better than most the need for universal health care. She had already been ambushed once at a private meeting regarding arthritis research and care, and now the wingnuts wanted to pitch a fit that she wouldn't allow herself to be ambushed at a public town hall.

So we Dems put out the word with only a day's warning and got a couple of hundred supporters on the street outside her office. There were so few of the wingnuts that the local tv station incorrectly reported that there were none.

Wish we could have a real town hall, but until some semblance of civility can be guaranteed I understand why Lois would want to lay low.

Hekate

[JamesA1102]

38. 3 replies and 13 recs is pretty low for this board.

More should be like you and get out there and do something.

[Hekate]

60. I know. I just wanted to let people know there are things you can do to support your representative.

This is just one of them.

The irony is that one of my further-left friends said she and a few others had been on the verge of giving her a Code Pink office visit because this same rep wasn't sufficiently gung-ho for single-payer or something like that. It was called off because of the pending protest by anti-health care reform stooges.

My own point of view is that Code Pink tactics should be used on the office-holders who refuse to listen -- you know, like Blue Dog Dems and Republicans in general -- and not on those who are trying to work with both us and the reality of politics in Washington DC. Otherwise all we are doing is tearing down and alienating our actual friends.

Hekate

[JamesA1102]

84. That's what I tried to do but

people here failed to care.

And I don't think Code Pink tactics are needed either, but we do need to let those Dems who currently support reform that we support them and have their backs because all they are hearing from is the other side right now.

[Merlot]

5. With a repub prez we wouldn't even be having this healthcare debate

Nor would we talk about globabl warming, DADT, and the economy would be "fundamentally strong."

Change comes slow, as it should.

[Yavin4]

8. A Repub Prez Would Have Us In Iran By Now

We would be bombing Iran and preparing ground troops for a full fledge invasion.

[Doctor_J]

63. So what?

how much different would your life be under President Palin?

[jody]

6. Are you positive that if Blue Dogs are not candidates another Dem candidate will win?

[Yavin4]

7. Some People Have To Re-Learn The Same Lessons, Over and Over

To this day, some people have still not learned the lesson of 2000. Not a one. They got 8 years of miserable hell, but they still don't understand American politics.

They still believe that Dennis Kucinich or Ralph Nader could be elected president, and get EVERYTHING that they want. They live in a political fantasy world, and no amount of reality will change them.

[SoFlaJet]

10. or Ron Paul Yavin

THEY'RE the ones that really drive me crazy-oh yea, the guy with the gun strapped to his leg the other day in New Hampshire? Ron Paul supporter.

[John Q. Citizen]

9. I think the Repos will always chose market driven failures over socialized reforms that work.

So why would I want to vote for Dems that do the same thing?

What's my incentive to do that? I hate to point this out to you, but it ain't just the Blue Dogs. Henry Waxman was a co-sponsor to the Medicare for All act (HR676) last year. Now that he's in leadership, he won't co-sponsor HR676 this year. What gives?

Fortunately HR676 is getting a full house debate and full up or down vote on the floor of the house this September. It will be very good to see which representatives vote for it and which vote against it.

[CTLawGuy]

43. then vote for dems who will support HR 676

in the primary.

[ellenfl]

11. we need to continue to back our admin. the alternative is

unthinkable but not unknowable . . . think back over the prior admin's years.

if president obama gets anything done on health care reform it will be a miracle. he has millions of dollars voting against him. if he can get portability, eliminate the preexisting condition issue and make the insurance companies insure anyone who wants insurance (reasonably, of course), then he can build from there.

we know who runs this country and real change has to be incremental. if president obama had gone head-to-head in the beginning, health care reform would already be dead in the water. we need to give the admin and congress time to get this done.

we will not get a perfect plan but it will, hopefully, be a start.

ellen fl

[GarbagemanLB]

12. They had 51 votes and they said they needed more. They have 60 votes and now say they need more.

You know what? If they can't push a progressive agenda with 60 fucking votes in the Senate then they won't with 65 or 70.

and this isn't even about the conservative Democrats alone...this is about Obama. What happened to airing the healthcare negotiations on CSPAN? Negotiating drug prices and allowing Americans to buy drugs from Canada? What about the ban on lobbyists?

Democrats are wimps, and Republicans are assholes. That's basically what it has always come down to. Yeah, Obama had me thinking things just might truly be different, but man is that hope going down the drain.

I really do hope Obama and the Democrats prove me wrong on this. PLEASE, show you have fucking spines. PLEASE, read the letters I (and I am sure countless others) have sent, asking for some principled stances. This is about real people who are powerless against these ridiculously evil HMOs and other insurance programs whose goal is to screw you out of the coverage you rightfully deserve while charging ridiculous premiums. Take a fucking stand. Just once.

Call me a pessimist, but Democrats don't have a good track record of standing tall, and this is the last straw with me.

[qazplm]

16. they dont have 60 votes

lieberman is not a reliable vote, conrad is not a reliable vote, baucus is not a reliable vote, specter is not a reliable vote, and I can easily count two or three others who are not a reliable vote on this issue.

We are much closer to 50 than 60 on this issue, so the idea that we "have 60 votes" is based on what reality?

[uponit7771]

17. Great, they still have 51 votes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[vaberella]

73. Conservadems equal 13 and many of them stated they would not support bill with PO. n/t

[GarbagemanLB]

19. There will always be excuses. My, how tempting they are to believe.

The point is, the Democrats can do this on their own if they want. They can do it ugly. They can force things with the numbers they have (they for sure have a solid majority). They can stand up to these horrendous corporations that profit off of people's lives.

They won't, though. They get too much money from these companies.

[Tarheel_Dem]

40. You do understand that if Dems choose reconciliation, the parliamentarian..

gets to decide what stays in the bill, and what goes? And most likely, the public option will be the first to go. We need 60+ votes, if at all possible.

Alan Frumin May Rise From Obscurity to Craft Senate Health Bill

By Brian Faler

Aug. 12 (Bloomberg) Republicans have said that if Democrats invoke reconciliation, they would respond by turning to Frumin to try to leave a health-care measure in tatters.

Senator Tom Coburn, an Oklahoma Republican, said he has been researching Frumin’s role under reconciliation. He said he didn’t want to give Democrats advance warning by identifying the provisions he might target. “I’m not going there,” Coburn said.

Concern

The chamber’s No. 2 Democrat, Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois, said he was concerned that “just about any of the insurance reforms we’re talking about” could be eliminated by Frumin on grounds they aren’t connected to the budget. That includes provisions to bar insurance companies from denying coverage to those with pre-existing conditions.

Also vulnerable, said Senator Kent Conrad, a North Dakota Democrat, is a public insurance plan that Obama and many in his party consider crucial and is opposed by most Republicans.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=a5R5Kp1llkYk

In essence, the Byrd Rule comes into play, with only 51 votes (reconciliation).

[vaberella]

72. Dude we have 60 Dems around and 13 Conservadems. That means we're short by 4-5.

Those Conservadems will fuck us over. CAn you not get it? Why is this so hard to grasp?! It's simple math.

60-13-1= 46 <--- 46 will not pass any damned bill. This doesn't even count Lieberman which makes things 14.

[wundermaus]

13. There is no difference. They are both bought and sold...

by their corporate bosses.
A powerful, activist citizen based third party is American democracy's only hope.
And the corporations will NEVER peacefully allow that to happen.
Everything else is smoke and mirrors.

[dmallind]

20. OK let's explore

I'm far from being against teh idea in concept. But the details become a bugger.

What kind of citizen activism should this party be based on? That term could mean anything from the G8 anarchists to the teabaggers.

How many people favor that kind of activism?

In how many congressional districts and states is this a majority?

What would be the collective political agenda of this party outside whatever activism that it is based on? Even the most successful and most valid citizen activist movements have had very divergent attitudes towards issues outside their core focus. Did everybody who marched for civil rights support freedom of religion? An end to military involvement outside our shores? The ERA? Gun control? Does everybody marching now for gay marriage support universal health care? An immediate pullout of Iraq and Afghanistan? Massive subsidies for alternative fuels while raising the gas tax to limit consumption? To be a powerful party means being able to direct or at least influence greatly the political agenda on a whole host of issues. How do you maintain unity or at least cohesion if you base a party on activism? There is no general activism, only issue activism movements which may or may not overlap in other areas, and certainly will not overlap in all areas.

[wundermaus]

39. Citing political extremes negate the premise that moderate

citizens could form a base for 3rd party representation. I would venture to say that most rational, independently thinking citizens would be receptive with supporting a party that does not represent corporate interests. That is because most corporate interests are directly in conflict with personal freedoms and liberties. The main problem with a third political party is it would get no media support since they are own and controlled by their corporate owners. In fact they would be systematically marginalized and trivialized at every opportunity. That is why only a third party that was activist driving would have any possibility of coalescing. The single issue parties almost never succeed. Progressive party themes would generally include a platform broadly based on anthropological, sociological, and generally scientific principals.

It would almost certainly need to be developed at the local city level. State and national migration would follow.

I'm an idealist, a dreamer and most likely not relating to reality too well. That is my character flaw. I expect people, generally speaking, to be rational, thoughtful, and compassionate. I think I am right in this, but we generally can be manipulated and distracted by fear and ignorance as well as scientifically applied propaganda. At some point, we will either throw off the chains of corporate slavery or succumb to decades (or centuries) of tyranny. I would like to think we could make some advancement in social justice and equality... that it could happen in my life time, but if not... it really doesn't make much difference to me personally, I'm just thinking of us Americans in terms of a larger linkage in the chain of human history and civilization. It has not always been a procession but not necessarily be a progression. America was an experiment in self governance that was overthrown by corporate personhood; exchanging people as property with property being persons. A system as such is based on false premises which is living a lie, unsustainable, and is destined for failure. Good luck with that.

[dmallind]

57. Well citizen activism for extreme positions is more likely than for moderate ones but hey

The same questions stand, and if you seek the middle become still more problematic. What collective opinions in the middle could be uniquely carved out and sold to a majority as different enough from the current options to warrant millions of dollars in donations?

You see the problem is talking about "throwing off the chains of corporate slavery" IS an extreme position. Test that phrase out on 1000 random voters and you'd get a handful ready to march in the streets with you, a handful who want you shot at dawn and about 950 who just laughed or shook their heads in wonder.

[wundermaus]

83. Yeah, I see your point...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ArJjJQdBtRs">better to just strap ones self in and enjoy the ride...
never mind...

[Hekate]

28. Ralph Nader, is that you?

:eyes:

[stray cat]

14. People like to dream of a world where they direct everything

instead of realizing others of equal value have votes as well. -resulting in some measure of disappointment. Dreams require practical work which is more than typing at DU or refusing to vote.

[The River]

15. Large Multi National Corporations

own it all and nothing meaningful is going to change
until the entire system collapses. Tinkering around the edges
will only delay it a generation or two while we become more
disconnected from our humanity as we compete for dwindling
resources.

[phleshdef]

18. If you are "done" with Obama because of this then you are being disingenious.

He has been working his ass off to get this done and to have it include a public option. Point the finger at certain Democrats in the Senate, they deserve it. But President Obama does not.

[GarbagemanLB]

21. He can threaten to veto a bill with no public option.

but he won't because this is about politics rather than real reform.

[phleshdef]

24. That would be the stupidest move he could make.

He will never get another damn thing done for the rest of his term. No one will work with him on anything ever again. It will be Jimmy Carter all over again.

In theory, threatening to veto would be the thing to do, but in reality I think it would be suicide for his administration.

[Fire1]

32. I WISH I could rec your post! Yours, is the TRUEST I've

seen in quite some time!!! Thank you!!

[Doctor_J]

64. He won't anyway

Beginning with this cave-in, all he will "get done" is what the Repukes tell him he can have, which will probably include a few crumbs that they can use to campaign against him in 2012 (if he runs - I have my doubts)

[CanonRay]

22. If Harry Reid can't squeeze this through with 60 votes

tell me how many he does need. 65? 70? What are the realistic chances of getting that. If this doesn't pass, the system is broken beyond repair. Let the Rethugs run the country into the ground. Maybe then people will wake up and throw the corporations out on their collective asses.

[Jennicut]

25. Um no. Its not the #'s but who we have in the Senate. Conrad, Nelson, Baucus

are preventing a public option right now.

[Pharlo]

26. As far as I'm concerned, there is no Democratic Party

anymore. Not in the historical sense of a party that cared about the average American citizen. There are The Lunatics who have taken over what was once the Republican Party. And, there is the official 'Democratic Party' that has been taken over by the traditional Republicans tripping over themselves fleeing The Lunatics in their haste to disassociate themselves.

There is no one left to represent the average American. They're, essentially, left in the cold. Nothing more than a source of revenue to bail out banks and cough up insurance premiums they will never be allowed to collect on because insurance companies will be hiring former members of congress and paying them exorbitant salaries to figure out how to deny claims en masse.

There are individual members of the current Democratic Party who do continue to subscribe to the traditional values, but they are becoming a small minority and being drowned out by profit driven corporations.

If the Obama administration really wanted to decrease/eliminate the deficit, they could just sell off the naming rights of the US to which ever company was willing to cough up the cash. Hell, we're already the unofficial states of Goldman Sachs, we might as well make it official and get something for it.

Sorry about the rant, I must be having a bad day.

[Fire1]

34. And alot of them have infiltrated this board. n/t

[Umbral]

30. Yeah, all you fed-up whiners, it's all your fault for not democrating enough, sitting on your asses

getting a black man elected President, getting overwhelming majorities in Congress, you didn't do enough, you haven't done enough! Until the Republican party is completely out of power, no GOP Senators, no GOP Congressmen, only then will we be able to accomplish even the most incremental 'change'. Lazy whiney slackers, what did you expect?

[CTLawGuy]

48. did you read?

or do you just like to rant?

[Umbral]

69. I read, apparently, both houses of Congress and the Executive aren't enough.

The Democrats always seem to have an excuse why thy cant accomplish something substantive. And they alway have someone asking for MORE.

[CTLawGuy]

81. your screed seemed to be mocking me because you interpreted my OP

as putting people down who want to push our representatives to the left. I did no such thing. This is my argument against abandoning our own party just because our representatives may not listen to us.

[high density]

33. Well, given the option of "bad" vs "extremely horrific" isn't too motivating

I didn't expect everything to turn to roses over night after electing Obama, but I did expect the Democrats in congress to fall in line for Obama. Obviously I was very wrong about that.

What healthcare "reform" we'll end up with remains to be seen, but right now I am certainly disappointed.

[Tarheel_Dem]

36. "but I did expect the Democrats in congress to fall in line for Obama"

You do remember the primaries, right? The Democratic Party is not a "fall in line" kinda party. Remember how we decried the lockstep Republicans? Democrats range from the most liberal to Republican lite. You've heard the expression, "herding cats"? Well, that's what the Democratic Party is like, always with the infighting. Liberals want to push out anyone to the right of Dennis Kucinich, and blue dogs want the liberals to just STFU.

So, how one man is expected to bring all these factions together to pass the most radical health reform agenda in decades, is beyond me. We didn't elect a dictator, and for that, I'm elated.

[Umbral]

42. "blue dogs want the liberals to just STFU and keep voting for them." *Fixed* nt

[Tarheel_Dem]

49. Are there overwhelming numbers of "liberals" voting for blue dogs?

If so, that's their own hypocrisy. They shouldn't be surprised at the result. What's dumb is that the Kucinich wing of the party doesn't understand that "liberals" can't win blue dog seats.

[high density]

53. Many Democrats that now don't want to support Obama had no problem lockstepping for Bush

The Democrats need to learn how to fall in line. All of the goodwill earned by Obama and all of these new people brought into the political process are being pissed away at record speed by this limp-dicked congress.

[kiva]

35. Hmmm, let's see.

"Do you think the next Republican president would pass the type of health reform you want?"
If this administration and congress can't pass through health care reform, why would it matter whether or not the Republicans would do so? Why should I work for/vote for/contribute to a group that, when it is in the majority, is so ineffective it can't function?

"Do you think withholding your financial support would not make Dems rely even more on "corporate" contributions (a funny
concept because corporations cannot directly make contributions)?"
Since paying for health care and insurance with no viable public option would reduce the amount of money that individuals would be able to donate - assuming they want to donate to those who have sold them down the river - then corporate interests will be the only ones with the money to contribute.

"Do you think leaving the party would not cause future Democratic nominees to become even more conservative?"
Only if they are as stupid as the Republicans, who react to loss by veering further to the right...in which case, they deserve to lose.

Now some questions for you:

If the current congress and administration fail to pass health care reform, do you think they should be rewarded by our continued support?
Do you see any sign that public contributions to our candidates have resulted in any dilution of corporate influence in policy?
Do you believe that people who have strong views about health care reform or opposition to the war in Afghanistan should continue to support politicians who don't support these goals?

[CTLawGuy]

46. ok

"Do you think the next Republican president would pass the type of health reform you want?"
If this administration and congress can't pass through health care reform, why would it matter whether or not the Republicans would do so? Why should I work for/vote for/contribute to a group that, when it is in the majority, is so ineffective it can't function?

because anything else would put the Republicans in power and they will at best do nothing to help. A third party will do nothing but put republicans in power, which will move this country backwards. Also, you can support primary challengers to anyone, even president Obama. But it is not him you should be worried about, it is the blue dog dems in Congress. Too few people understand that Obama is not a dictator and cannot wave a magic wand to get the health reform he wants. We need pressure on Congressional dems to the point of threatening primaries.


"Do you think withholding your financial support would not make Dems rely even more on "corporate" contributions (a funny
concept because corporations cannot directly make contributions)?"
Since paying for health care and insurance with no viable public option would reduce the amount of money that individuals would be able to donate - assuming they want to donate to those who have sold them down the river - then corporate interests will be the only ones with the money to contribute.

that's not really a response to the question, though I'm not sure if you are arguing that contributions should be withheld in the first place.


"Do you think leaving the party would not cause future Democratic nominees to become even more conservative?"
Only if they are as stupid as the Republicans, who react to loss by veering further to the right...in which case, they deserve to lose.

democratic nominees reflect the character of the primary electorate. If liberals leave, then the primary electorate is consequently more conservative.

Now some questions for you:

If the current congress and administration fail to pass health care reform, do you think they should be rewarded by our continued support?
Not at all. I'm not going to run away from the Dem party over it, though. I'm going to put blame where it belongs, on conservative blue dog dems, NOT on Obama who wants to sign a public option. However he is the president, not a lawmaker. He can only sign the bills that come to his desk. I will be happy to back primary challenges to Harry Reid, Kent Conrad and any other dem who votes against a public option.

Do you see any sign that public contributions to our candidates have resulted in any dilution of corporate influence in policy?
I am not sure what you mean by "public contributions?" Do you mean internet, small dollar fundraising? Not all candidates do that.
Further, you have to remember only 25% of this country is ideologically liberal. That means a lot of dems are moderate. Also, in the US senate, moderate/conservative, rural states have disproportionate influence; MT has the same number of senators as CA, ND the same number as NY. Take Kent Conrad. ND is not an expensive market. I would guess he is more worried about the ideological bent of his mod/conservative constituents than raking in tons of cash. I think a lot of politicians think that way.

Do you believe that people who have strong views about health care reform or opposition to the war in Afghanistan should continue to support politicians who don't support these goals?
No, you don't have to in the primary. Vote for a candidate who more shares your views. But if you are a Democrat, you vote for the Democrat against the Republican. Otherwise we all suffer.

[kiva]

52. I agree that the current assignment of power, ie the Senate and the

Electoral College, give small population states far to much influence in the government. Unfortunately I don't see any sign of that changing as long as those same politicians are in charge.

Our main area of disagreement here is the idea that liberals should always vote for the dems in the final vote, no matter how many times they've screwed us over. I've done just that for 35 years, and frankly, no more. If a candidate refuses to support issues that have traditionally defined the Democratic Party (and liberals), then they don't deserve my support or vote no matter what letter they have after their name.

[CTLawGuy]

55. ok

think through the actual consequences of that. What would happen? What would you accomplish other than a momentary sense of satisfaction?

[WeDidIt]

37. I think that doing nothing would be better than a bill without a public option

so the Republicans would do nothing.

That's better than what the Democrats are about to do.

After all, ikt always comes down the the least of two evils, and my assessment of which evl is the least is about to take a major shift.

[Milo_Bloom]

45. Unfortunately, true.

If we do "something" the debate is taken off the table for the next 20 years. Doing nothing at least would have kept the debate on the table.

[Milo_Bloom]

44. I was done with them before this.

Because I predicted exactly what would happen.

[CTLawGuy]

47. What has happened?

we are at the stage where different bills are being bandied about. Lets see what gets to the president's desk first ok?

[Milo_Bloom]

54. Exactly what is happening.

Watching any use of health care reform getting whittled away.

Without the public option, the bill is useless.. actually worse than useless... it does harm, because it takes "health care reform" off the debate table for another 20 years.

[CTLawGuy]

58. First

nothing is going on because Congress is not in session. Two, "health care reform only goes off the table" at any point if we let it. It was gone in 1994 because the republicans won Congress and of course didn't want to take it up. Only this year did we get Congress and the presidency back to try again. If we don't lose congress in 2010, we can try again.

[Milo_Bloom]

82. Not at all!

If a bill get passed, we don't get another shot in 2010. It is over and done for 20 years at least. The only way we get another shot in 2010 is if this bill goes down in flames, THEN we get another shot.

[debbierlus]

50. Capitulating to the corporations on the life & death issue of health insurance is a line in the sand

No. The Republicans won't be better.

Apparently, the democrats will not be better, either.

There comes a time when you stop throwing in with a party that betrays the people to special interests.

They will have NO incentive to change, if we continue to be codependent enablers.

If the democrats betray us on this life and death matter, if they put insurance companies profits over true reform, then FUCK THEM.

[Unsane]

56. Republicans are getting everything they want with this bill.

[CTLawGuy]

59. what bill?

there are multiple bills. The finance committee bill and the HELP committee bill are just two of them.

[Doctor_J]

66. You better yell that, to make sure those with their heads in the clouds hear

[Proud Liberal Dem]

68. Yeah, and you can tell how *happy* they are about it too.

They want NONE of it, not even the eminently sensible measures like portability, no denial of benefits, etc. Have any Repukes voted for ANY of the versions of the bills that have been passed so far? :shrug: THAT should tell you everything you need to know about how much they "like" what's in any of the bills.
Obama has begun hinting that he is NOT going to allow the Repukes to kill reform entirely and will make sure that SOMETHING gets through- over their helmets if necessary.

[Name removed]

61. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Doctor_J]

65. Fuck off

I gave more time and money to the campaign, and to my rep's campaign (seat went blue for the first time in years - will now be going back red) than you and your 5 closest friends put together. Don't tell me who's side I am on. You need to come back to the real world and admit that this is an epic disaster which could have been avoided.

[BlooInBloo]

67. Have fun in whatever country you end up in.

[Doctor_J]

62. Man, I thought I was delusional

The game is over. You can throw all of your time, money, and support inot whatever county-level event you want, and it isn't doing to do a fucking bit of good.

Save your money. Try to get to another country before the bottom falls out. There is no one left to fight for us.

[CTLawGuy]

80. no you were right

you are delusional. I bet you won't even move to another country.

[undeterred]

70. If the Democrats and Obama can't get it done

with 60 seats in the senate, a large majority in the house, and a Democratic president, then the Democrats really are too weak to even bother with.

Why would anyone be inspired to work for better Democrats without campaign finance reform? Its just the same old story over and over. He or she who takes the most money wins, and pays it back to their corporate overlords.

[kiranon]

71. Don't give up. Keep fighting for what you want - no one said it would be easy.

Sometimes its two steps forward and one back or 2 forward and 3 back but you stay in the game. What the President is trying to do is not easy given the blue dog democrats and the tactics of the right. If the right thinks that the President's followers are just good day followers and not fighters, they will just press on harder with their right wing agenda. Hang in there and fight for a good health plan knowing you will not get everything you want. Half a loaf is better than no loaf at all. Stay and fight another day for the other half.

[DevonRex]

75. The board has been taken over by Naderites. It's no longer Democratic Underground.

So, of course they won't vote for Dems. They never were Dems to begin with.

[Sebastian Doyle]

78. FUCK the DLC

and fuck the ridiculous argument that anybody to the left of the DLC (i.e. REAL Democrats) are "Naderites".

I never voted for Ralph Nader. He's done a lot for this country, and he's correct in 98% of what he says, but he's absolutely wrong in thinking his vanity candidacy every 4 years is going to solve anything.

We need to take back OUR party from the corporatist DLC and the cowardly BlueBalls.

[Cha]

76. One thing..they will not be

on this board during the 2012 election.

[Sebastian Doyle]

77. Of course in some states, even voting the worthless pieces of shit out in the primary isn't enough.

Being a "CTLawGuy", how do you feel about the law in your own state that allowed one such worthless piece of shit to invent his own fictional "party" and take back a senate seat that he should have been ineligible to run for, after losing a primary.

Yeah, I know it's slightly off topic to the main subject of the thread, but you did mention primaries, and it's a relevant argument, if primaries themselves can't stop them, as is the case in your state.

[CTLawGuy]

79. CT in 06 was an anomaly

the GOP had only a throwaway candidate so the repubs all supported Lieberman. If they had a serious candidate, Lamont would have won.

In fact Lamont still only lost by 10% despite losing a third of the dems and nearly all the repubs voting for Lieberman.

[LWolf]

85. 1. No. 2. n/a 3. maybe.

#3 is why I'm still a Democrat, even though I don't like, trust, or respect the party.

#2? I'll withhold financial support from every centrist/dlc/corporatist/3rd way dem...not from every Democrat.

#1? I don't want a republican. Neither do I want a centrist/dlc/corporatist/3rd way center-right democrat, which is WORSE. Worse, because the "D" legitimizes the corporatist agenda. I'll give my vote to someone on the left. If the party doesn't nominate someone that I can vote for, then my money and vote will go elsewhere. It's the party's call.