oh, goody. we're back to the "there's no difference between dems and repukes"

[cali]

sorry, but there are huge differences as well as disturbing similarities. And there are enormous differences between Obama and McCain. There are life and death differences between the parties and these two candidates.

This is not the fucking time for self-indulgent bullshit. It's all too similar to 2000 and we know where that got us.

Criticize the dems who voted for the bailout to your heart's content, but don't lose sight of the differences between an Obama presidency and a McCain presidency, and don't think it can't get worse with repubs in charge of... anything.

[babylonsister]

1. Amen and rec'd. nt

[aquamarina]

2. Really - says who? How about these two words:

Supreme Court.

[moodforaday]

21. Well, Dems helped approve Roberts and Alito,

so that particular argument is embarrassingly naive, no?

[cali]

24. oh fucking please. are you serious? do you really think

McCain SC appointments would be just like Obama appointments? that's the point, no? embarassingly stupid of anyone to not understand that.

[elocs]

3. I'll second that Rec. Keep your eyes on the prize and work to get Obama elected.

This bill is passed already and Bush has signed it. I would rather have an Obama administration watching over it and working to get the money repaid because that is what Obama said he would do.

[mzmolly]

4. That didn't take long did it? There are a handful of people who are ready

to pounce at the slightest disappointment.

Republicans say "Obama is the most liberal senator in the senate" and some here are implying he's akin to Bush. It's ridiculous.

:hi:

[moodforaday]

23. "Slightest" disappointment?!

Next to IWR, this may be the worst thing to come out of Congress since Bush took power. Also, it is an indicator of how the Dems will govern when Obama wins.

[mzmolly]

52. How do you know?

We don't know what the end result of this legislation will be ...

[moodforaday]

65. Wait a minute.

I thought we knew exactly what the end result of not passing it would be, and by extension we also knew what the result would be if it did pass. I mean, why would you hammer through such a huge spending bill in a week, ignoring all opposition and all alternatives, if you didn't know what the bill was going to do?

[mzmolly]

66. I never claimed we knew either. What I do know is what he end result

of a McCain Presidency vs. an Obama Presidency will be.

As for the bailout I defer to Krugman and others who said of the rescue plan - "while not perfect" something had to be done, fast.

[moodforaday]

26. Oh, and...

Republicans say "Obama is the most liberal senator in the senate" and some here are implying he's akin to Bush. It's ridiculous.

Republicans also say the media are liberal - which is of course a nonsense. Or do you believe Obama is liberal because Republicans say he is?

Obama voted to support the bad bill Bush wanted - now that is a fact.

[mzmolly]

53. I believe Obama is Obama. I believe his positions are solid/rational/progressive.

Obama voted for a bill that many said was necessary. Bush was not alone, many progressive economists agreed that something had to be done - now that is fact.

[snake in the grass]

61. While I don't believe...

...Obama is the most progressive candidate, he is certainly as progressive as the juvenile U.S. can accept at once, and I think it is counter-productive to rip him on his bail-out bill stance. If he would have been against it, many people would have perceived that as a disconnect to the problems of your average 'Murcan. It is important that Obama wins because the alternative would mean the end of our country as we know it. Period.

[uppityperson]

5. k&r

[Junkdrawer]

6. On this vote, there was a HUGE difference between Democrats and Republicans...

The majority of House Republicans voted against the bill.

[cali]

10. so? in the senate the majority of repubs voted for it. furthermore

only slightly less than half of house repubs voted for it.

[Junkdrawer]

11. I'm thinking this vote will look good hung around Democratic necks...

Don't you? :shrug:

[leftupnorth]

13. Absolutely! It'll look great next to all the other capitulations to Bush. n/t

[cali]

14. no I honestly don't think they stand a chance of being successful at that

Their prezeldent proposed it. their nominee supported it. Most of their senators voted for it. all their leadership in both houses supported it, and nearly half of house repukes voted for it. not only that, but public opinion is hardly static or uniform on it. how on earth do you see them being able to hang this around dems necks? My guess is they don't even try.

[Junkdrawer]

18. Look further Right and you'll see it coming....1994 Redux

Palin hinted at such a strategy last night, and Palin regurgitates Rove/Fox/Limbaugh talking points.

[cali]

22. what did she say? McCain supported it and voted for it.

really not going to work. both parties are up to their necks in this.

[Junkdrawer]

27. Corruption..greed (she repeated that word alot) maverick...

I don't think McCain will explicitly run against it, but my sense is that the GOP Right will and that Palin will support that position.

Just a guess. We'll see if I'm right.

[leftupnorth]

20. That's the GOP tagline for 2010

[PVnRT]

64. Well, then, go vote for them

They are the party of "The People," now, I guess.

[NeedleCast]

7. Just the usual group of people who's mantra seem to be

"No one is liberal enough for meeeeeeeeeeeeeee!"

[fascisthunter]

29. and the usual sellout fence sitters....

are bitching about those who seem to have been right about everything for the last 8 years, while those same fence sitting moderates basically enabled Bush for just as long. Main Street thanks you..... Great strategy....

:shrug:

[ColbertWatcher]

8. Please help my poll ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=4162435&mesg_id=4162435

[Swede]

9. I think it's perspective cali. The farther from the center you get,

the closer the two parties look.

[leftofthedial]

12. there definitely are differences

repukes are good at politics.

[cali]

15. silly myth. cliche. it's what the freepers say about dems.

[leftofthedial]

28. today's vote proves the "myth."

resorting to implying that I'm like a freeper is beneath even you, isn't it?

[cali]

30. no, really it doesn't. and no, I'm not implying that you're a freeper

simply pointing out that frequently some DUers and freepers regurgitate the same lines- in reverse.

[leftofthedial]

56. oh. did I regurgitate?

I thought I farted.

[EFerrari]

16. LOL! Why can't it ever be, "there's no difference between corrupt mofos

and the rest of us?" -- that would make sense.

[cali]

19. actually that would be just as mindless.

[EFerrari]

25. No, cali. Actually, that would be much more accurate. n/t

[donheld]

17. Anyone who believes that is a total idiot!

[Two Americas]

31. there you go

The crisis has passed, the emergency is over. Get back in line.

Time to move on, nothing to talk about anymore. Anyone persisting in talking about this latest cave in is just one of those nut cases trying to claim that there is no difference between the two parties, and they are to blame for everything that has gone wrong, and they are the ones "helping the Republicans."

You see, everyone, it is not our representatives who are to blame - the people who actually ARE helping the Republicans and their wealthy and powerful clients. No, no, we are to now believe that it is anyone who points this out who is to blame. This is not about voting nor about beating Republicans. It is about embracing a lie.

What a massive bait and switch. "Don't get me wrong, I agree with you about all of that New Deal stuff, BUT this is an emergency and as a first step we need to compromise on this, and then we will get to all of that other stuff."

Then, after the Dems cave again, immediately we have the loyalty tests, and the ridicule and smears and the attacks on the Left increase.

Now that the wealthy and powerful have once again beaten us down and crushed us, all of those things about which we were told "don't get me wrong I agree with you BUT..." are described as "self-indulgent bullshit."

This is not about beating the Republicans, it was not about tackling the financial emergency. It was all about - as always - crushing the Left, and betraying the people, and advancing the ongoing campaign to promote the free market and Reaganomics from within the party and disguising that campaign and misleading people about it.

[bread_and_roses]

35. Exactly. (n/t)

[cali]

39. bzzzt. wrong again. first of all, stop making shit up. I don't for one nanosecond

believe the crisis is over. In fact, I believe the crisis is just beginning and it's going to very, very bad. I don't think that anything they could have done would have changed that- though I think they could have done much better things with that 900 billion dollars.

Having said that I'd sure as fuck rather have Obama as president during the coming maelstrom than McCain. I'd rather have dems in congress during the coming maelstrom than repubs. If you can't get why that's just pathetic.

[Two Americas]

48. right

This time is different, that is why we are promoting the exact same thing with the exact same arguments.

[alarimer]

54. They are simply two sides of the same coin.

There is really not that much difference between them, given how much the Democrats have caved into Bush's every whim, despite his unpopularity.

I think the reason that there is not much difference is because of the presence of DLC/Blue Dog DINOS. They have simply ruined the Democratic Party for me. Progressive values are the ones that will save this country, not caving in to big business. And until the Party moves leftward, there will be this perception of no difference because there isn't really much of one.

It is long past time to bring back the New Deal and it is time for Obama to recognize this but I fear with all the "free market" bullshit he spouts like all the rest, his administration will be a great disappointment. But it is the only thing that will save us. It did once before. Reagan and his policies need to stay buried. This crisis should completely discredit them and Obama and his ilk need to see that and stop clinging to the free market fantasy.

[Two Americas]

58. it was right there

It was right within reach. The people had turned on Reaganomics - finally! - after this 25 year nightmare we have endured. It was right there. Almost all of the working class "Reagan Democrats" could have been peeled away from the Republicans. Democrats would have swept into office with enormous support and a strong mandate.

[Hannah Bell]

57. hear, hear.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

32. Why don't you thank them all for this?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x4163984

[Odin2005]

33. They are Naderites trying to push their BS without getting banned.

They remind me of the Communists in Germany in 1933 who refused to form a coalition with the Social Democrats and thus let the Nazis take control thinking that letting the Nazis in would make the "glorious global proletarian revolution" come faster.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

38. The Social Democrats called in the Freikorps to stop the revolution.

Which caused the failure of the revolution and the murder of many leftists.

[Odin2005]

47. Really? the SDers called in the thugs?!?

I didn't know that! :wow:

[blindpig]

63. Yes, they murdered Roda Luxemburg, among others.

[ForeignSpectator]

44. What are you talking about? In case you talk

about the "Ermächtigungsgesetz" which established Nazi rule, you have no idea. By the time of voting about this law, members of the communist party were already arrested and their mandates taken away to assure the necessary majority. Social Democrats were the only ones voting against and the "Zentrumspartei", predecessor of today's CDU i.e. conservatives, made it Nazi rule possible by their voting for it.

Where do you have your statement from?

[Odin2005]

46. I can't remember exactly. Karl Popper, in "The Open Society and It's Enemies" maybe. n/t.

[Two Americas]

60. Nader???

How come we didn't hear a peep about Nader all during the debate here about the bailout?

If this had anything to do with Nader, one would think we would have seen his name in every thread.

This is very cynical. I didn't see any talk about Nader here recently. Nader is the post-cave in smear tactic, I guess. Quite a ballet of talking points. So well choreographed.

Why would you preemptively make this argument? What would make you think it is relevant? There can be only one reason - because you yourself know that the bailout shows that there is damned little difference between the two parties, and you started thinking Nader before any of the people you accuse of being "Naderites" did. Interesting.

[bread_and_roses]

34. How right you are! The Dems throw us rabble scraps and bones! We are so grateful!

After all, the Rs dump their chamber-pots on us.

When it comes to real power and money (one and the same in the good ol' U.S.of A.)the differences need an electron microscope to tease apart.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

36. Like the difference between perpetrators and abettors.

[57_TomCat]

37. Even so the party was

betrayed and the similarities are looking a lot more compelling. Very sad.

[mhatrw]

40. And who the fuck's fault is that?

:grr:

[fascisthunter]

42. bravo

[gravity]

41. I thought that in 2000

Well, mostly that the Republicans aren't going to be much worst than the Democrats, with all the crap about passionate conservatism. Bush didn't take long to prove me wrong

[lumberjack_jeff]

43. The "disturbing similarities" are making everything else far less relevant. n/t

[lostnfound]

45. That's what the politically uninvolved in the elevators are saying.

The arguments all end with that statement now.

[western mass]

49. Another Golden Oldie from corporate apologists

Yup, there's a difference: right wing policies from the corporate Dems, or ultra-right wing policies from the GOP. Slow destruction of america under corporate Dem rule, or quick destruction under GOP rule.

Sorry, I choose neither option. I'm a Democrat, not a corporate democrat. I save my efforts for the primaries.

[high density]

51. Evidently you failed to read the OP that you're responding to

Last night Joe Biden was on national television advocating for a windfall profits tax. You can have pie in the sky dreams during the primary, but you've got to realize the country you're living in when it comes to the general election. This isn't Denmark.

[western mass]

62. Pie-in-the-sky dream = a congress...

not completely in the pocket of corporate lobbyists. Sigh...you're right. Too much to ask for.

It's heart warming to see Biden asking a few crumbs back to the masses. After their $700 billion handout, giving a little back is the least they can do.

[paulk]

50. yup.

Interesting scene tonight in front of the Denver DNC offices - they had a row of tables set up to register new voters (to take advantage of "first friday" - many of the art galleries are in the same area as the DNC headquarters - lots of people milling about) - a group of around 30 Naderites were across the street yelling "Obama / McCain, they're all the same". I guess grammar isn't their strong point...

It was kind of like how they're crawling out of the woodwork around here.

[That Guy 888]

55. I'm going to vote for Obama, but please understand posts like this hurt as much as they help

Watching the Dems lace up the 'pubs boots so they can kick us all in the ass again is really getting old. Having the all too ordinary reasonable resentment of that called "self-indulgent bullshit" REALLY doesn't help.

[and-justice-for-all]

59. There is a stark contrat between Obama and the other guy..nt

[Better Believe It]

67. Republicans Will Stop Obama Supreme Court Appointments With Filibusters

Unless he makes conservative appointments they approve.