Obama will Lose Tons of Support if he Doesn't Support a Bill w/a Public Option

[Bullet1987]

Many Democrats are going to lose interest in and drop their support Barack Obama is the reports of the WH supporting a bill with no public option are true. Obama has gone from a lion in the campaign, and become a weak, maybe 1-term President with a corporatist healthcare bill (some say it already is, but the Public Option at least gives us a fighting chance).

[still_one]

1. I agree, if you believe what the media is reporting. However, I want to hear it from him

on Wednesday, not some corporate media who has a hidden agenda, whose talking points are floated by so-called progressive blogs like "huffington-post"

I will reserve judgement until then

[cascadiance]

7. Remember, the date of the speech is 9/9/9...

And if he turns things upside down for us in terms of being in our corner, well that date upside down will be symbolic of what kind of sh*t will happen then!

[Jim Sagle]

2. I've been skeptical of Obama. But I won't give up on him altogether.

At least not until I hear his speech.

[Clio the Leo]

3. lol and go where? NT

[slay]

10. If the liberals just plain stop voting - the Dems lose

So LOL all you want - I'll sit out 2012 if there is no public option - as will many liberals I'm sure. I'm not taking this shit anymore. He wants my support - he has to earn it. He was for single-payer BEFORE the election - I guess just to get liberal votes. I'll write in Kucinich before I vote for a corporate Dem ever again. We need REAL change.

[FrenchieCat]

11. Well good for you!

That will teach us to remember what we had for 8 fucking long ass years.

We sooooo smart! :blush:

[slay]

13. You know, unfortunatly that may be what it takes to wake people up

I'm not willing to sacrifice my values just to ""win""! I'm sick of voting for the lesser of two evils. I'm not saying Obama is a lesser of two evils necessarily, but he will lose the support of the unions, liberals, and many more if he sells out the public option. And I'm not saying Howard Dean 2012.... yet.

*edited to remove unnecessary snarkyness

[treestar]

144. You always have to vote for the lesser of two evils in this country

Maybe in a Parliamentary system, it would do some good, you could get a Green Representative (then again, the right could get Libertarian Representatives). Here you're just voting for the wingnuts by sitting out.

Obama's not going to lose that support. When was the last time a third party candidate had a shot.

[Sebastian Doyle]

149. 1992

Clinton wouldn't have beaten Poppy Bush without Ross Perot's help. And Perot was actually leading the race for a while before he dropped out of the race, and then back in. I voted - and busted my ass campaigning for - Clinton, but if I had that one to do over, I probably would have voted for Perot, based on NAFTA alone. He was right about what it would do to this country.

And in the years that have passed since that election, a lot more people have been disillusioned by the corporatist nature of both parties. If the Democrats do not produce actual health care reform, they will lose a lot of voters. And those voters would never vote for a Repuke.

Stay home? Yeah, that's one option, but not a very effective one. The opportunity for a third party would be even better than it was with Perot. And if there was someone like Howard Dean running on top of that ticket, it could very well win.

Is that my first choice? No, I'd prefer a Democratic party made up of actual DEMOCRATS, and not a bunch of filthy fucking corporatist swine trying to undermine a once great party from the inside. But if that is no longer possible, then maybe it's time to start over?

[treestar]

152. He was a billionaire

And not someone the left would have voted for.

And is someone like Howard Dean likely to start a third party?

[Sebastian Doyle]

154. I don't think it would be his first choice either.

But look where this party was in 2003 (after the Iraq war sellout) when Dean stepped into the national spotlight with his primary run.

Then look at how much he did to restore the party, with that run, and his term as party chairman.

And now look at how much of that has been pissed away - in less than a year - by the corporate fellating DLC'ers and Blue Balled Cowards.

I would imagine Dr. Dean is as pissed off about that as I am, if not more so. If the "Democratic wing of the Democratic party" can no longer have any influence IN the so-called Democratic party, then it might be time for a new party that actually reflects the values of real American people. And yes, I could see Dr. Dean leading that party if he felt there were no other alternatives. Especially with health care reform as a rallying cause.

[TankLV]

97. yes - yes it WILL - and YOU and OBAMA will only have YOURSELVES to blame!!!

so stop with the SPEW...

You want OUR support, then SUPPORT OUR GOALS - JUST ONE TIME WOULD BE NICE!!!

Sure, all the CUTE CHILDREN, and NEW PAINT JOB in the White House is all PRETTY, but on GBLT, TORTURE, SPYING, bush* SECRECY AND CRIMES, CONTINUING and INCREASING bush*WARS, etc., etc, - you know ALL THE IMPORTANT ISSUES WE ELECTED HIM TO CHANGE AND THAT HE RAN AGAINST THE REPUKES ON! - he's JUST LIKE bush*!!!

[Clio the Leo]

15. Well unless you and the Tea Baggers can decide on a candidate you both like.....

.... you're wasting your time and money. If he alienates the far left, he'll carry the middle.

The other choice is Mitt Romney in the White House.

pick your poison.

[slay]

23. Look, we are never going to agree on this

I'm done choosing the lesser of two evils. Done. It gets us nowhere.

[Clio the Leo]

33. Just as long as you dont vote for the Republican.....

.... as my PUMA friend did last fall.

Not voting ..... I can respect that .... voting for the enemy .... not acceptable.

...... and just plain dumb.

[slay]

35. Fuck no - I would NEVER vote Republican

I'll write in Kucinich first. And I'm waiting to see what he says in his speech next Wednesday - who knows, maybe he'll surprise me.

[Clio the Leo]

38. Good! Now.........

..... work on some of your little friends around here because they're scaring me!!!!! lol

I mean you and I BOTH know that Barack Obama on a bad day is WAY better than.......

[slay]

43. True - but...

I have nobody I consider a "friend" here. Some like-minded people are on here no doubt - but it is up to them to decide how they would react to dropping the public option. I know when we vote, we are most always voting against someone, and not really for someone - we vote against the worst person and if we're lucky, the one we do vote for is at least OK. Well, that's just not doing it for me anymore. Most European countries have multiple parties, not just two - if the corporations well and truly own both current parties as it appears they do - then that will eventually happen here too as people sicken of it.

[boston bean]

75. If you vote for a Democrat that governs like a republican, what does that say?? nt

[TankLV]

98. Who EVER said they would vote FOR a REPUKE?!!!!

YOU'RE the only one trying to puch that CRAP!!!

WE will just WITHOLD OUR VOTES next time around, if a BETTER candidate doesn't present itself!

And you can bet your ass that that candidate will NEVER be a REPUKE!!!

The only option me and my friends now see is NOT VOTING!!!

[treestar]

146. Historically, lack of voter turnout helps Repukes

And one thing I give them, they are never stupid enough to withdraw support from viable candidates for not being far enough to the right.

[treestar]

145. You're done with reality then.

If you're that far to the left, you're never going to see in your lifetime what you want in this country.

[Tx4obama]

18. Slay -- You are wrong...

Obama said several times on the campaign trail at his rallies and town halls that an 'only single-payer' is NOT a viable option at this point in time. He said that if we were starting from scratch decades ago then it would have been a different story.
I wish more people would have listened to him during all of his talks/speeches, then they would know that he was never (in the past few years) an advocate for single-payer.

[Clio the Leo]

19. But what YOU dont realize is that the 2008 Presidential campaign actually started...

.... in 2003. :)

(I believe this is where this interesting notion comes from anyway)

http://www.breitbart.tv/obama-in-03-id-like-to-see-a-single-payer-health-care-plan/

So it doesn't matter how many times he's repeated what you correctly stated above, because ONE TIME, a LONG time ago, he said something different. See how that works?

[Tx4obama]

21. Thank you for the link...

okay apparently he said it a LONG TIME AGO.
But he was very clear during the 'real' campaign of what he thinks now -- and everyone out there should have been listening to him since he stated his new position so very many times :)

[Clio the Leo]

25. lol, I'm afriad you're being too generous.....

... in your expectations of what we're capable of. :)

[slay]

29. One thing we are obviously not capable of is doing the right thing

which would be single-payer. we all know it.

[Clio the Leo]

31. Ok, I'm an open minded sort...........

..... tell me what your plan for this.

When do you implement it?

What happens in the interum?

How do you pay for it?

[slay]

34. I don't claim to have all the answers - I'll defer to Kucinich and Bernie Sanders on this one

I trust them to get it done. But pay for it - easy - tax the rich at a rate of 75% or more - they've been ass-raping us for years and owe us big time for the Bush and Reagan years.

[Clio the Leo]

42. tax the rich at 75%!!!!?

and that's when this good socialist has to go to bed. lol

we cant have shark jumpage, I don't care if it IS 4am!

'night slay :pals:

[slay]

44. Night - but yes - tax the rich at 75% (I'm talking top 1%) Trust me, they'll still be rich

richer than you or I will ever be.. :)

[bvar22]

57. IOW, repeal the Reagan Tax Cuts.

Use a Democratic frame.

The top bracket was over 90% in the 50s...people still got rich and businesses boomed.

Kennedy dropped the top bracket to 70% in the 60s...people still got rich, and businesses boomed.

[slay]

78. Exactly bvar22

I should have posted those figures last night but it somehow slipped my mind. :hi:

[TankLV]

99. and the MIDDLE CLASS and WORKING PEOPLE gained BIGTIME!!!

[Clio the Leo]

113. And how does a Democratic President do that...

.... and get re-electd for a second term?

Now ..... if we did that incrementally over a span of years, I'd be for it.

[cascadiance]

131. FDR did that! and he got reelected to third and fourth terms!

Which pissed off enough insiders that he was so popular after doing that that they put for the amendments to limit presidents to two terms subsequently.

Those "no new taxes" drones that work for the Republicans at some point will realize that it isn't their taxes that get raised but only the top 1-2% in the higher top marginal tax rates that get hit. When they connect the dots that these small segments of people control the corporate lobbyists and our government through them, and control our media as well, they'll realize that they've been brainwashed with propaganda for so long to do the elites' dirty work.

Then perhaps we'll return back to the times when the middle class was a lot stronger.

[sunnybrook]

153. FDR existed in a different historic context

During this era the president would not have been vilified for speaking to school children! And the extreme partisanship and 24 hour spin cycle were not the issues they are today.

Barney Frank is right, some people do not understand the give and take of making policy. For the people who would never vote Obama again... it's sad that you placed your vote based on one issue, with the myriad of domestic and foreign policy decisions that the president has to make every day.

[cascadiance]

160. The reason "it's a different context" is that the Dems are LETTING the other side define things!

Reagan also spoke to kids in the same way and he wasn't villified. It was because you have drones now that are manipulated to do almost any little nitpick against Obama and the spineless Democrats by the corporate interests that control them, and none of them have the cahones to stand up to them.

You need someone's leadership to say, we're going to change this system now, and make it serve the people. If noone is willing to do this, we no longer live in a democracy now, and our big D "Democratic" party is also a joke in that context too.

Where did I say I "based my vote on one issue"?

Now I do think that health care is the issue I draw the line in the sand on saying this is where our backs get broken, but I've been WAITING for something other than spineless action on a myriad of other issues that haven't had any substantive response to serve the American people as well, not just health care! (Torture, state secrets privilege, employee free choice act, H-1B Visas and outsourcing, NAFA and CAFTA treaty renegotiations, yanking the gratuitous corporate welfare for thins like ag subsidies that have contributed to immigration issues, which he also hasn't done much on, public campaign financing reform, media reform, etc.

There are maybe a few things that he's done that have been more symbolic rathre than substantive to take on the corporate interests, but really nothing to date. And he started by hiring the corporatist's tool in Rahm Emmanuel when he took office, which he didn't HAVE to do even if he was going to tackle things incrementally.

Thom Hartmann played a real nice speech that FDR gave before getting elected to his second term, reach really demonstrated courage to take on the big elite's interests in his time to restore the country to work for Americans, not just them. And the people ate up his speeches and cheered wildly. Now, maybe that was a different "historical context", but a lot of its similar circumstances were present then, including even an attempted coup thwarted by Smedley Butler, and I think sometimes we should learn from history how we can tackle problems to fix the country. And if you have obstacles that become too big to focus on those big issues (like corporate interests are now with health care reform), you step back and say, "Well, if you're the big problem we have getting in the way of doing what America wants us to, then I guess first I'll have to deal with you!", and then prioritize things like public campaign financing to be worked on as a part of fixing health care. Since the latter doesn't seem possible to fix without doing the former.

From many of our points of view, it doesn't seem like many in Obama's administration are willing to take on these special interests with things like public campaign financing, and instead want to do the opposite (use these corporate elite interest's influences) to work out a solution instead of ever trying to take them on head on when needed. It's like saying to a fox that there will be some creative way they can be a part of guarding the hen house, when THEY are the problem to start with and at some point need to be dealt with.

[WillyT]

118. An Illustration... Just For You...

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_SqhhJb_P3Kk/SeYaOXkKdbI/AAAAAAAAGZQ/0rPz_ggTfKU/s400/Historical+top+tax+rates.jpg

:hi:

[Sebastian Doyle]

150. You're right, that's too low

Tax them at 91% like the Republican president Eisenhower did.

[bvar22]

56. Phase in Medicare incrementally.

Immediately drop Medicare eligibility to 55, then add 10 years every 3 years.
As the age limit drops and the risk pool is expanded in Medicare, it will become more economical.

This will cost LESS than the current proposal in The House.

[laughingliberal]

84. It is all spelled out in HR 676 n/t

[Clio the Leo]

114. Sounds like I need to catch up on my reading, thank you NT

[bvar22]

55. And Obama was being more than a little dishonest.

Truth is....we don't have to build a Single Payer system from scratch.
We have a very successful Single Payer Systems UP & RUNNING....Medicare.
I wish someone had called him on that.

He also STRONGLY opposed MANDATES during the campaign, but NOW he is supporting them.
Oh Well.

bvar22...cursed with a memory.

[slay]

20. VIDEO of Obama saying he wants single-payer:

So YOU are wrong. I wish now that I HADN'T listened to him - or at least had the sense not to believe him.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpAyan1fXCE

[Clio the Leo]

22. Again, which is from 2003.....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8625631&mesg_id=8625743

[slay]

26. Ah I see so the guy we got as prez is NOT this guy huh?

Hrmm.. I wonder what could have happened.. oh yeah - he's playing politics, not doing what's right.

[Clio the Leo]

28. Duh! aliens! Krypton! Helloo!!!!

..... the one we have now is a clone!

Are you just now finding this out?

(I'm sorry, it's 4am, all you're gonna get out of me is snark, I know I should go to bed, but I just cant do it .... I'm jacked up on Mtn Dew)

[slay]

30. LOL - I hear ya.. I'm just saying what I feel

And I'm just trying to keep it as snark-free as possible. I appreciate the apology though as well as yall's point of view.

[Clio the Leo]

36. And you'll forgive me if I'm of the belief ......

.... that a man's opinion can evolve over time without it being for cynical reasons. ;)

I enjoy being able to change my thinking on a subject, especially after I've been able to study it more .... I simply give him the same liberty.

[slay]

37. I agree - but how is single payer a bad thing? What has changed?

:shrug:

[Clio the Leo]

41. arrrrrg!!! lol

Just what he's been saying for years..... IT'S TOO DISRUPTIVE!!!! ha ha

and in political speak "disruptive" means too costly, but literally and politically.

Now, here's where we're going to run into problems ........ because the President and I are pragmatists ..... and I suspect you're not.

Sometimes the perfect is the enemy of the good. ;)

[slay]

46. We are reaching a point where we need revolutionary change

I can not accept people dying from lack of health care. It is unacceptable to me.

[Tx4obama]

32. Slay, let me ask you this...

Did you only listen to what he said in 2003 and nothing at all that he said during the campaign?
Do you never have a change of opinion?
Have you never changed your mind once you have looked at more facts and done more research on an issue?
Do you think that someone's opinion is chiseled in stone forever and then can never be altered?

[slay]

40. I want single-payer because it is right

not because of/or lack of a campaign speech. As far as my views on changing opinion - of course that's fine - but what has changed to make single-payer so bad now? I know we won't get that - but now they are talking not even a public OPTION? No, I can not accept that.

[TankLV]

100. That's why I campaigned HARD - AGAINST obama - during the Primaries!!!

I was not FOOLED then - but I sure was a fool to vote FOR him afte all!!!

I should have "abstained" as I had originally planned to do...

[Mystayya]

66. They are all in full spin mode.

My guess is you are wasting energy.

[slay]

77. You are probably right Mystayya

Doesn't really look like I got through to those two does it? I saw your post further down and this too is my line in the sand. We all know we SHOULD have single-payer. WAS NOT EVEN CONSIDERED - would have been a great bargaining tool - but if we are not even allowed a public OPTION - a freaking OPTION - then I too will either stay home next election, or I will write in someone's name who I feel passionately will deliver REAL change. Someone like Kucinich, Bernie Sanders, or even Howard Dean. Eventually people will hopefully wake up and realize that heath care should be a RIGHT, not a privilege, and that making huge profits off sick people is what is truly sick. :puke:

[Tx4obama]

24. Slay he said that in 2003. That is not what he was saying on the campaign trail.

SEVERAL / MANY / TONS of times on the campaign trail last year ALL YEAR LONG he stated his current position.
If you didn't hear it then you must have been living under a rock.

[slay]

27. Single-payer is the RIGHT thing to do - he knew it then

I guess he sold out sometime between 2003 and now. :shrug:

[Tx4obama]

39. Obama told everyone ...

Obama told everyone ... during the campaign, before people voted, what his position was.
It is not Obama's fault that you were not listening.
I listened to him explain why single-payer was not a viable option now and what he was going to do, and I voted for him and I am NOT disappointed in him because in my opinion he has told NO falsehood.

[slay]

45. So you are OK with him dropping the public option?

Cause I'm not. I don't expect single-payer. I do expect a public option AT LEAST.

[Tx4obama]

48. Obama has NOT said that he is dropping the public option.

You really should stop listening to what the media says and listen to what President Obama says.
Don't forget to listen to his speech to the joint session of Congress on 09/09/09

[slay]

50. I plan on listening to the speech

but would you be OK with Obama dropping the public option?

[Tx4obama]

51. I will be okay with...

I will be okay with him getting as much as he can get in the bill right now and adding more at a later date if that is what he can do.
It is better than nothing at all like when the republicans were in charge.
And better than when Teddy Kennedy wouldn't compromise on HC when Nixon was in the WH.

Sometimes it takes time to reach the ultimate goal.

[slay]

52. Well, we'll just have to agree to disagree

That's where I draw my line. I really really REALLY want single-payer, it's the right thing to do. But if there is not even at the very least a public option, I'd rather he just drop the health care overhaul until he can get us at least that. I'm sooooo not ok with people dying cause they can't get/afford insurance. Not just dying - but avoiding going to a doctor because it costs too much. If he loses the public option, he'll be a one-term president so I'd rather him wait awhile and get it.

[Tx4obama]

53. And if Obama loses support from the dems bc of HC then the Republicans and

And if Obama loses support from the dems bc of HC then the Republicans and the insurance companies win.
You are playing right into their hands.

Goodnight.

[slay]

54. If that's what it takes to wake people up to the need for universal healthcare

then that is not MY fault. We should have had single-payer years ago - everyone knows it - and we would have if it weren't for the republicans. sorry, but you can't make me feel guilty over what I know to be right. goodnight.

[TankLV]

102. No - YOU and OBAMA will be playing right into their hands!!!

WE will just STOP PLAYING THE GAME!!!

[Sebastian Doyle]

151. If he loses the support of Democrats BECAUSE he caved in to the insurance and drug companies

then that means the right wingers already won anyway. So you expect Democrats to reward that caving in, and support it?

Fuck that. I literally can't afford to.

[TankLV]

101. and MOST of those votes "for" obama were IN SPITE OF THAT STAND!!!

That's what YOU ALL fail to UNDERSTAND!!!

[bvar22]

58. Obama was FOR Single Payer....

...before he was AGAINST it.

[WeDidIt]

85. I won't sit out, but I'll be done voting for Dems. n/t

[Becky72]

62. To the most liberal candidates

The one not afraid to stand up to the other side.

[Mystayya]

65. I know I won't be held hostage like that anymore

I will support more progressive candidates or I will stay home. I am fed up with being lied to by those we send to Washington to represent us. It's my line in the sand and unlike our Democratic congress people, I actually mean what I say.

[ima_sinnic]

82. sounds like you think you can take liberals' votes for granted

-- and that apparently is the attitude of the DLCers and fake "centrist" "democrats" who think we'll keep voting for them because they have a D after their names.
I will no longer be voting on the basis of party but on principles and substantial issues. I will write in Kucinich for president if Obama caves on health care. I will vote third party for congress people if necessary. If the Democrats want votes, they need to adhere to Democratic principles and represent We The People and not the corporations.

[laughingliberal]

87. I agree

I think they do believe we will have to vote for them because we have nowhere else to go. The truth is that low voter turnout has always been the bane of Democratic candidates. Suppressing the base is a bad idea.

[slay]

112. +1

Something told me - I just KNEW I should write in Kucinich and not vote Obama - that he was too corporate-center and would let us down - but I really wanted to believe his message of change. Stupid me I guess - I voted for him anyways. Those days are over. I will never vote for another corporate candidate ever again - even if that means we have to go through some tough times before people wake up to the corporate America nightmare we are in. They call us "consumers". I call us "citizens".

[cascadiance]

132. I wrote in Howard Dean and voted for Edwards in the last two Democratic primaries

when I lived in California, even though both had pulled out by the time I had a "choice"!

I was tired of:

[treestar]

147. You'd rather be pure than make any progress at all

You can betcha the right wing will never do that. This is why they get so far. I'm not going to live in a right wing paradise, even if I have to be Impure and vote for centrist Democrats.

[laughingliberal]

83. Stay home or protest vote for 3rd party, I would guess n/t

[AllexxisF1]

135. Oh I can think of some great Liberals to take him on in the primaries.

This is the Waterloo for our President because it's the first real test to see if he means the change he spoke about.

If he does not get us a single payer system or a solid public option than we will find someone else to run against him in 2012.

If he caves on this I will be the first one holding a sign that says Gore\Dean 2012.

F-Him, there is no middle anymore. It's either do something or nothing. I worked my ass off to put him there to do something...meaningful.

[freddie mertz]

155. Go to a primary opponent? Go third party? Or sit it out?

I have never come close to anything like that before.

But maybe it's time for our so-called leaders to pay a price for breaking promises, putting profits before the good of the American people, and taking our votes for granted.

Hopefully this is all academic... we have time to apply pressure and hope against hope for the best.

Till at least Wednesday, that is.

[backwoodsbob]

159. go where?

stay the fuck home

[FrenchieCat]

4. I wrote him a long ass letter today......

Hope someone reads it, cause even I'm not having it.

[Clio the Leo]

16. it's "long assed" .... do I need to teach you how to conjugate your swear words? :-)

(at least in the South it is lol)

[Mystayya]

68. I wrote him again yesterday after the trigger remarks came out

and my congressmen. Like you, I hope they listen.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

5. Nope.

[cascadiance]

6. Might be the day to start formation of a new party!

... and talk to the progressive Democrats in the House to do a mass defection to it. Probably wouldn't happen next week, but for many of us, this move by Obama would be a signal that he's not someone we can any longer support, and that we can't wait any longer for him to come to his senses, and need to start making other plans.

[Clio the Leo]

17. What will your mascot be?

Because you are NOT taking the donkey with you! ;)

[TankLV]

104. I think a WISE OWL would do nicely!

You know - letting REASON and INTELLIGENCE govern our decisions, instead of some dumb ass ASS KIKING AND BREYING IN REACTION TO EVERYTHING THE ELEPHANT DOES!!!

[Clio the Leo]

115. May I humbly suggest.....

.... a wolverine? ;)

[Joe Bacon]

59. We need an American Tommy Douglas.

Bill McGuire and his goons have won on the Federal level. The game is over. You're getting THE SNOWE JOB and your helath care bills will keep going up instead of going down. Bill Mc Guire will cry all the way to the bank as his salary triples with 50 million more suckers buying his high deductible policies. And the Federal Government will give Bill all the welfare he needs while millions of more people get fucked by insurance companies and have their lives ruined the same way my life was destroyed.

I'm looking for a Tommy Douglas here in California that will pass Single Payer statewide. As for the rest of the country, I give up. The teabaggers want to get fucked by the insurance companies, let 'em.

We've passed Single Payer twice in California only to have Arnold veto it. We need a governor who will tell Bill McGuire to fuck off. And then we need a Governor to tell Olympia Snowe to take her fucking trigger and stick it up her ass.

[cascadiance]

125. Perhaps if Oregon elects Kitzhaber to a third term, he could spearhead Oregon to do single payer

as well... HE's also very much driven to help Oregonians get a decent health plan too...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=174x6830

[saltpoint]

74. The blueprint for such a "new party" would have to represent a

VERY significant improvement than all previous models, none of which managed much more than a small percentage of the support of the electorate, and sometimes, as in the case with Nader and McKinney in 2008, decidedly less than 'small,' and more like 'microscopic.'

[cascadiance]

126. That's the past, when most people thought/hoped that democrats would be a "significant improvement"

... over Republican presidents and congresses. Nader will have more demonstrable proof to support his claims earlier that the two parties are serving the same masters and are slaves to corporate America. I think though progressives who want smaller pet issues dealth with better might need to pull back from demanding work on those and focus on the key issues like health care and other big ones like campaign finance reform, where the interests of the other two parties are with corporate lobbyists and at odds with a majority of Americans who want to see a people serving solution. Less focus on the divisive social issues and more focus of the core being taking out corporate interests out of the equation. I think that would potentially bring in a lot of other independents and even some Republicans too.

And if the Democrats want us to come back to the Democratic party after this break is made, say that the ONLY way that will happen is if the Democrats pass instant runoff voting legislation, which allow third parties to be a part of the mix, and arguably won't hurt the Democratic Party like some said that Nader did earlier, if the Democrats truly return to working for the people's interests instead of corporate interests. It would make it that much harder then for corporate interests to "buy off the field" to limit our choices and control whoever gets elected.

[saltpoint]

138. Respectfully disagree that the landscape has appreciably changed in regard

to being favorable for third party support.

The Democratic Party itself is by no means the same Democratic Party of the U.S. South in the time of Ax Handle Maddox and the early George Wallace. If you listen to the tapes of telephone calls between John and Robert Kennedy and the Democratic Southern governors to whom they were valiantly trying to persuade on the virtues of civil rights, you will hear the distinct echo of two extremely different kinds of Democrats.

Going back very far in U.S. history, political parties break into factions, over either specific issues or regional issues, often both at the same time as one and the same.

Many of the households of Southern Democrats who resisted the Kennedys became the building block demographics of Richard Nixon's "Southern Strategy." See under 'Trent Lott.' See under 'Strom Thurmond.' And on down a very long and sorry list.

The evolution toward what Dr. King felt was the long arc of justice bends in the Democratic Party trajectory, not the Republican Party trajectory, and for a third party to succeed at any point, the rationale for its ascent must bend more effectively -- and not at a sharper angle -- than the justice trajectory.

[Aramchek]

141. good luck with all of That

[treestar]

148. How big is this group?

Is it really enough people to start a party?

When the Repukes become irrelevant because they are too far to the right, then the Democratic Party may split anyway - the Blue Dogs being the new relevant conservatives.

Don't know how long that will take, but at least not with the current elderly generation around voting. Maybe when Baby Boomers are the oldest generation.

[slay]

8. He'll lose mine

I'd rather see a great bill with a public option fail than no public option. If that were to happen he could easily point to ALL the republicans who voted no as the reason why. GO FOR IT OBAMA - ROBUST public option or preferably single-payer, medicare for all, whatever you want to call it - but go for it!

[fadedrose]

9. I still like President Obama and always will...

but the opposition is so strong that I hope he says, "Let's drop the whole idea for now because I cannot pass a bill that will give the insurance companies more power and influence than they already have."

And to the progressives, ask them to get more involved so that in 2 years, he could pass a single payer bill with the help of more Dems and even some Reps. The majority of the public is in favor ot it, so give'em a chance to vote for some new people. I don't think anyone expected all the lies that have people up in arms.

And he should get rid of Rahm Emanuel...

A bill that doesn't have a public option is the worst thing that can happen to this country, and once they have the power, nothing can take it away from them.

[quakerboy]

162. How about a bill that does only one single thing

No options, no mandates. Just gets rid of the "pre-existing condition" clauses. No compromises, no plans, no subsidies, just that one thing?

Not sure how you do that, but where there's a will, there's generally a way. And lets see the pubs fight that one.

I don't want him to "drop the whole thing". I would far prefer to see him Fight it to the end. Never accepting anything less than a public option. I think the "dropping it" idea is a break even political move, at best. I strongly believe that if the people see him standing strong, it will bring support and enthusiasm that is wavering some. Even if he loses that fight, better to have tried than not. Its compromise that will make people stay home, thinking that one party is just like the next.

[Tx4obama]

12. If America deserts Obama over only ONE issue then we don't deserve to have him. n/t

[democracy1st]

47. thats the problem its more than one issue

[Joe Bacon]

60. Look who Obama has abandoned

He's dumped gays and lesbians, he just doesn't have time to repeal that Don't Ask, Don't tell policy. He has more important things to do, like making sure his pal Bill Mc Guire gets 50 million new customers.

He's abandoned Don Siegelman, just doesn't have the time to rectify that miscarriage of justice.

He's abandoned prosecuting Dick Cheney for war crimes, just can't do that, since David Broder would consider that a major no-no

He's dumped the unions, he just doesn't have time for the Employee Free Choice Act.

Oh, and Iraq? Looks like we'll still be there and in Afghanistan for a while. What could be more fiscally responsible that throwing another trillion dollars down the toilet?

[slay]

80. Excellent points Joe Bacon

and it's really starting to piss me off. Who is this guy? Where is the guy I voted for from the campaign trail? Where is the guy who promised us real change? Ugh he's morphed into just another typical politician - and looking at your list, a pretty poor one at that. This is pretty much his last chance to redeem himself with me. He loses the public option - a freaking OPTION - he loses me. And don't even get me started on Afghanistan - argh!

[Tx4obama]

137. Hellooooo

Congress already announced that they will be voting to get rid of DADT in the next couple of months.
If Obama had repealed it then it would not have been as permanent as when the Congress votes it out.

As far as Afghanistan, Obama ALWAYS said on the campaign trail that he'd pull the troops out of Iraq and INCREASE the troops in Afghanistan -- he is doing what he has always said he would do.

[freddie mertz]

156. Is there anything he could do that would bother you?

I don't know your innermost thoughts or your record here, but you seem at first glance to be willing to accept any decision he makes without questioning it.

I don't think that is the American way, but maybe I'm reading you incorrectly.

[Becky72]

63. One BIG ASS issue, I would add n/t

[Mystayya]

70. How about 3 big issues? would that make it okay to be pissed at him and Congress?

[Tx4obama]

14. Are you going to vote for a Republican? GOOD LORD !!!

President Obama has 100's of things on his plate other than health care - you wouldn't know it by listening to the media every day - or even by listening to the 'health care reform Democrats'.

No president is a 'one issue' president and President Obama should not be judged by only one issue.

Btw, over at Politifact.com on their Obameter of the 516 campaign promises that they are tracking -- so far President Obama has fulfilled at least 40 of his campaign promises and 88 have been rated 'in the works' http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter /

I am very proud of President Obama for what he has accomplished in the short time that he has been in the White House.

God Bless the Obama Family!
Obama 2012

[mecherosegarden]

61. +1 N/T

[Becky72]

64. There are more options other than Obama vs. a Republican

There is the "more liberal candidates" option.

[Mystayya]

71. What a rediculous argument.

[TankLV]

105. ONLY YOU idiots are spewing that CRAP!!! NOT ONE OF US HAS EVER SAID WE'D VOTE REPUKE!!!

WAKE THE FUCK UP ALREADY...!!!

oh, and BECAUSE YOU REFUSE TO PAY ATTENTION - STILL, IT'S A FUCKING LITANY OF ISSUES, this one being just the LATEST!!!

INCREASING bush* WARS
ABANDONING us GBLT in favor of the WACKO RELIGIOUS IDIOTS like mcglurkin, and warren, and others,
SPYING
TORTURE
SECRETS

and many other many have mentioned here...

this is just the LAST STRAW!!!

[Hatchling]

117. The whole story at poliifact.com RE; Obama Promises.

http://politifact.com

He made 516.

40 have been kept.

88 are in the works.

11 have been compromise.

7 have been broken.

12 have been stalled.

358 have had no action.

40 out of 516!!

And the really important ones: real Health care reform, LGBT rights, reversing illegal Bush policies, Bush war crimes, getting our of our illegal wars Have not been dealt with.

If this Democrat "horse" we put in the race won't run the course we set for him, then it will become time to find another "horse" that is more progressive.

I've been a life long Democrat due to the progressive stands they once took. If they won't stand for the law and civil rights for all. If they won't back the people who voted and campaigned for them, I won't be able to back them.

I will wait until 9-9-9 to make a decision.

[bvar22]

120. Other BIG ones:

*Dropped support for EFCA (Employee Free Choice Act)

*"Changed" his mind about renegotiating NAFTA.

[cascadiance]

127. And Schumer's trying to run through H-1B caps being raised next week too!

The Rahm-per-room needs to stop NOW!

[bvar22]

130. Chuck Schumer is one of the biggest weasels in the Senate.

*

[Raineyb]

123. That's the argument that the blame Nader people use

And it's still a specious one.

You talk (or write as the case may be) as though the Democratic party is entitled to our votes no matter what the hell they do. A corporatist Democrat is no more likely to vote the people's interest than a Republican. Why the hell should I vote for any Democrat who sells my interests to the highest bidding corporation? I don't vote against my best interests and I don't support politicians who don't represent my interests. That the Democratic party would think that they're entitled to my vote without earning is arrogance of the worst sort represents a line of thinking that we ought not tolerate.

Health care reform is a huge issue and I damn sure will pull my support for any Democrat who doesn't get us at the least a public option (with single payer being the gold standard) That goes up as far as and includes President Obama no matter how proud I am of him. The party does not come first!

[dreamnightwind]

49. Obama jumps the shark?

This is where we find out if he is worth the effort it took to elect him.

If he does little to truly reign in the corporate profits in the health and drug industries, but mandates that all Americans buy into it, he has jumped the shark.

If so, ALL of my efforts will go into supporting actual progressives, with no regard to their electability. Is this smart? No. Is it pure? Yes. Sometimes pure wins, and when smart wins, we usually get screwed.

[saltpoint]

67. If the President doesn't produce exactly what I want, goddamit, I'm voting

for Michele Bachmann.

[Vinca]

69. If there's no public option a whole lot of us won't live to vote for him again.

[saltpoint]

72. My support for Barack Obama does not, except perhaps in a Dali painting,

translate to lack of empathy for someone who is ill.

Please make the distinction.

[Mystayya]

73. ~eye roll~

[saltpoint]

76. Seriously. Michelle Bachmann is the ticket.

Possibly David Duke could serve as her veep, provided no one even crazier is available.

[WeDidIt]

91. If there's no PO and Obama is running against Bachmann

I vote Green.

[saltpoint]

92. To snap the reverie for a moment, Michele Bachmann is not going to

be the Republican nominee in 2012.

Or IMO at any other time.

The Green Party in Europe is a focused, influential force in a way that it is not in the United States.

I think it ought to reconsider its strategy over here, possibly to more closely replicate the strategy of our European pals. Certainly the nomination of Cynthia McKinney and a cosmically pathetic last place finish among already-marginal third parties in 2008 might suggest that a rehaul is called for.

I think most of the people on this site, certainly yourself and myself, support a strong public option.

[WeDidIt]

94. I could care less how effective the Greens are

It's a statement of withholding MY progressive vote from a REGRESSIVE Democratic Party should they prove to be so on health care reform.

[saltpoint]

95. Yeah, I got that.

[TankLV]

107. game set match - you prove my point nicely...

[saltpoint]

109. But the real question will be whether Michele Bachmann can match

Palin's wardrobe expenditures.

Now there's the hinge.

[Meshuga]

81. I would still vote for him

But I would not campaign for him or give any financial support like I have done in the past. It is not about getting what I want but seeing him doing what he promised to do in his 2008 campaign.

[saltpoint]

86. The President has likely gotten the message that the public option is

popular and knows why we feel it is necessary.

There remains the difficulty of budging the blue dogs and the otherwise recalcitrant insurance companies. That's not a weekend project. And more to my point, their recalcitrance is not Obama's fault.

I have been contacting my Congresscritter, my 2 U.S. Senators, Sec. Sebelious, and the White House in daily emails arguing as succinctly as I can for a strong public option, and hope others will do the same.

[Meshuga]

110. I am doing the same

I haven't given up yet. I live in a very blue area where my representatives agree with me. But I have been emailing the white house with polite persuasive arguments for a public option.

[saltpoint]

111. I'd say that was excellent all around. Thank you for doing

a great job of being a citizen.


:thumbsup:

[TankLV]

106. as usual, always a stupid statement from you...

[saltpoint]

108. And the top of the morning to you also, Tank.

[polichick]

79. During the campaign, some warned that Obama was a corporatist...

That is now apparent imo.

Instead of being a strong conservative corporatist he looks like a weak centrist corporatist ~ not a winning situation for us in 2010 and 2012, since those in the middle will probably lean toward any kind of "strong."

[QC]

88. Most of those people are not here anymore.

They were hounded off the board by a shrieking mob.

Ah, memories.

[polichick]

119. I remember thinking that HRC was a corporatist (and hawkish), and hoping that...

...Obama would be less so. Looking back, probably only Kucinich would not have been inclined to bow to corporate interests.

[ProSense]

93. How is it apparent? n/t

[polichick]

122. By the people he chooses as advisors/staff, by the Bush policies...

...he continues, by the constant reaching out to Republicans.

[GarbagemanLB]

89. That includes mine as well. This is a huge issue and probably the only chance at real healthcare

reform we will have for a long time.

[dionysus]

90. if he wimps out liek that, i'm with you. i'm going to wait and see first.

[WI_DEM]

96. How come Bill Clinton wasn't a one term president? Obama will still get more real reform

on health care than either Clinton or Ted Kennedy with or without the public option.

[WeDidIt]

103. Without a public option, it will make things WORSE than had no bill passed

Sorry, but that's the fact of the matter.

With no public option it is nothing but governmetn mandated wealth transfer from thw working poor and middle class to rich insurance company executives.

It will make the situation WORSE!

[Inuca]

124. Oversimplifying much?

Reaching final conclusions without the needed information much? The effing bill, with or without the PO, triggered or not, DOES NOT EVEN EXIST YET. If there is no PO (I hope there will be one, but I don't know, obviously) do you know what conditions and regulations may be imposed on the private insurers? Just as an example out of many.

Sorry, but this kind of oversimplification of a very complex set of issues is like the idiots that claim that the house version (one of3, THERE IS NO BILL YET) is too long and complex and keep repeating on Fox "why can't they write a bill that is only a few pages long?" "why is it this complex?" Why? because it IS complex. Apologies again, but claiming that no PO means that things will be worse is the same kind thinking. You may be right in the end, I don't know, and you do not know either, because the BILL DOES NOT YET EXIST.

End rant :blush:

[bvar22]

129. It IS that simple.

Mandated purchase of Insurance coupled with a weak/unavailable/non-existent "Public Option"

EQUALS

Massive mandated transfer of wealth to the Health Insurance Industry, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Wall Street Banks.

It IS that simple.
and Obama and the Centrists KNOW that.

[Inuca]

133. Even if, for the sake of the argument, they make it so

insurers cannot charge more than $100/month?

[bvar22]

136. LOL!

I don't deal in fantasy.
Why stop at $100 Dollars.
Since we are playing games, what happens if the Health Insurance Indusrty decides to stop charging for Insurance?


50 - 60 Million are currently uninsured.
If they pass mandated Health Insurance coupled to a weak Public Option that only enrolls 10 Million by 2019 (HR 3200)....

You do the math.

[thelordofhell]

128. Reasons why Bill Clinton wasn't a one-term President

Economy rebound

Bob Dole

Ross Perot

[tavalon]

116. DU is freaking out

Usually, DU is ahead of the curve but sometimes we freak for no reason. If this is the former, yes, Obama has indeed met his Waterloo. If it's the latter, I wish we could learn how to settle down and wait.

[bvar22]

121. NO!

NOW is exactly the right time to raise Screaming HELL.

The White House has floated several Trial Balloons about dropping the Public Option over the last 2 weeks.
We need to let the White House KNOW exactly what will happen if they do so.

If there is no REAL Public Option, I'm leaving the Party (after 45 loyal years), and I'm taking as many with me as I can.

Dropping the Public Option (or castrating it...HR3200) is an open admission that Nader was right.

[tavalon]

139. Don't worry

I'm sending daily missives and this will destroy his base if he doesn't keep the public option.

[EndElectoral]

134. If Bush can get universal coverage for Iraq, Obama can at least get us a public option. See below

http://www.democracyfornewhampshire.com/node/view/6700

Bush administration already funded single payer health care for Iraq....
SOURCE: SeattleTimes
Wednesday, March 03, 2004

Universal care is right for Iraq, Thompson says

WASHINGTON — Fresh from a two-day weekend visit to Iraq, the Bush administration's top health-care official defended the $950 million that will be spent to help Iraq establish universal health care.

[Name removed]

140. Deleted message

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

[MasonJar]

142. He will need the corporate cash because many progressives will

not be giving and will not be out knocking on doors. the environment and healthcare are my bottom line issues. He promised change; he had better deliver it.

[treestar]

143. Will the Democrats who would not support it also lose support?

The Senators?

Why is this so important? Clinton couldn't get it through either.

This country is full of idiots who think it is "socialist" to have what we have already.

[ShortnFiery]

157. As was noted earlier: Dear President Obama, Please retrieve your balls from our ...

Speaker of The House (Nancy Pelosi :yourock:) and get to kicking some GOP (and Blue Dog) a**!

[TheBigotBasher]

163. I agree

Nancy Pelosi has been excellent, the Senate - not quite.

[Cha]

158. Yeah, and what's overlooked by more than a few

is that President Obama wants it, too, for our country.

[quakerboy]

161. Flip that. If Obama gives us a major Public Option push

I will follow him to the gates of hell, politically speaking. If he gives us that, I might even be able to get my wife out to do some activism, where her cynicism made it a dubious prospect even getting her to register to vote in the US previously.