Ever notice that some of the same people who are denouncing the Democratic Party

[ProSense]

comparing them to Republicans, and advocating that support and votes be withheld from the Party (example the Mass. election that resulted in a win by Scott Brown) are the same people complaining that the country is becoming fascist?

How did ensuring a victory for Scott Brown help?

[ProSense]

1. Don't just unrec, refute the point. n/t

[iamthebandfanman]

5. there'd have to be a point to do that. n/t

[jannyk]

65. +1!!!!

[xultar]

82. [phone] million trillion gazillion brazillion billion...ROFL

[ProSense]

108. -10000000000000000000000000000

More than 100 responses later, the point is pretty clear.

[yodoobo]

115. DU should just autobot a rec complaint in slot #1

that'll save alot of time.

[inna]

116. how do people complain about unrecs, even after unrecs have been eliminated?

i just don't get it. :shrug:

[arcadian]

2. That is is some nonsense

[ProSense]

3. Why? n/t

[Oregone]

4. Because you didn't cut and paste

[arcadian]

6. Yeah, I mean, your only mesage at DU is "fall in line or suffer the consequences"

And you post it, over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.

[ProSense]

7. OK, I get it:

you cannot refute the point.

[arcadian]

9. Surely

I can

[amborin]

15. impossible to argue when you're up against meaningless blue links

that repeat the same meaningless banter over and over

[ProSense]

18. There is no link.

You have no point.

[amborin]

23. LOL

no blue links today?

have they run out?

[Raineyb]

46. What point? Mindless orders to worship the party bosses does not a point make. n/t

[unapatriciated]

47. +1

[RainDog]

8. they don't think there is enough difference between the two party positions

all the democrats have to do to disabuse this position is to enact legislation that doesn't involve union busting of teachers, giving away massive amounts of money to Wall Street at Main Street's expense...

that sort of thing.

their rationale is that the republicans, when in office, are the harsher version, which will upset more people.

surely you understand triangulation, right? isn't that what you're doing here?

[RainDog]

10. oh, and the continued funding of abstinence ed - proven useless already -

in the recent health care bill.

presenting the McCain/Romney health care bill as a "democratic" initiative...

[ProSense]

12. "their rationale is that the republicans, when in office, are the harsher version"

Aside from their claim being bogus, how does helping Scott Brown or Bush to win help?

[RainDog]

20. so, you're saying the republicans are not as harsh?

not the harsher version of corporatism?

I already noted the rationale, but you're asking me to explain it a second time. So, as I said, they think the republicans are the harsher version and if they're in office more people will be pissed off about the merger of state and corporate power.

I can repeat that sentence in various ways, but that's the gist of the line of thinking... that and hoping that the democrats will recognize that, if they would move to the left of Eisenhower, they would still win elections and also provide better government.

or at least be as liberal as Eisenhower.

[unapatriciated]

49. bush didn't win

[laughingliberal]

11. Ever notice that both parties have moved to the right

Ever notice we have Newt Gingrich supporting a Democratic administration's policies on public education which are right in line with Reagan's vision in the 80's?

Ever notice most of us have held the same position on policy that were core Democratic policies for 30 years? Ever notice we have Democrats today advocating policies we fought Reagan on tooth and nail? Ever notice we aren't the ones who moved? Ever notice we have Democrats failing to support union membership and siding with corporations against workers and consumers?

Ever notice this post seems to be an attempt to continue an argument from another post this morning?

[ProSense]

13. What about Grover Norquist?

People are full of hypocrisy. Anything they don't agree with, no scratch that, anything that doesn't move things far enough to the left is fascist.

Ludicrous.

[laughingliberal]

21. The left has not moved

The left still advocates for the same Democratic party principles they did 30 years ago. We have not moved, straw men notwithstanding.

On edit: I do not advocate withholding votes or voting Republican or anything else to defeat Democrats. But this continued denial of the move to the right is indefensible.

[ProSense]

27. What nonsense

"The left still advocates for the same Democratic party principles they did 30 years ago. We have not moved, straw men notwithstanding."

In the 1990s, DOMA became law, and was even supported by Senator Wellstone.

In 2006, for the first time the incoming Senators were all pro-labor.

[laughingliberal]

29. Those you attack as 'the left' hold the same principles they did 30 years ago

which were pretty much the same as the party platform back then. Today we see elected Democratic officials advocating principles Reagan introduced to our country. Cherry pick all you want. There is no denying it. And, as for those pro-labor Senators, we can revisit this when the debate on EFCA comes up. We'll see how that goes.

[dflprincess]

120. Really, the OP can't be directing this to the left

This administration and its toadies have made it clear that they don't need us so it won't matter what we do in November. She must be directing this toward moderates.

:sarcasm:

[amborin]

30. the OP says citizens' complaints about creeping fascism are unacceptable! how's that grab you?

[Echo In Light]

34. I figured the OP was simply calling out other DUers

Oh, wait ...

[laughingliberal]

36. I figure the OP is just attempting to continue here arguments from another thread this morning

:)

[Ignis]

90. When I looked up "bulletproof" in the online dictionary...

I found a link to this OP.

[leftstreet]

35. Heavens, the OP apparently advocates Totalitarianism

ON A DEMOCRATIC BOARD!
:cry:

[amborin]

exactly! the totalitarian squad!

otherwise, that picture is hilarious!

[sabrina 1]

53. Give an example of recent legislation that was not moving

this country more to the right? Do you support moving the country even further to the right?

[leftstreet]

14. Scott Brown won his victory by running as an independent

Both party labels are suffering from negative branding.

But then you know that

[ProSense]

16. What does that have to do with the OP? n/t

[leftstreet]

22. You were suggesting that 'we' were responsible for Scott Brown n/t

[ProSense]

24. The OP was directed at you?

You have been advocating withholding support and votes form the Democratic Party?

[leftstreet]

26. LOL All Ur Red-baiting R Fail

Where'd you learn to do this?

:rofl:

[RainDog]

33. agreed. this is pretty lame ass. n/t

[Ignis]

62. Next up: "When did you stop beating your wife?"

[frylock]

96. this is what happens when she goes off-script..

totally out of her element when not posting boilerplate.

[amborin]

99. lesson:

better stick to the blue links

otherwise: embarrassingly contradictory and fascist posts

[PVnRT]

17. Yes, we know. Leftists should just do what you want them to do.

They shouldn't take any action at all that might disrupt the Beltway status quo.

Never mind that Coakley ran a shit campaign; clearly, it's all the evil leftists' fault.

Quiet, leftists! Get in line and give us money and votes! Your opinion doesn't count!

[ProSense]

19. Oh brother. n/t

[PVnRT]

31. So, you can't refute my point then

At least you've stopped pretending otherwise. That's a good first step.

[ProSense]

41. When you can prove that the OP is ordering anyone to do anything

then the point would be valid and worthy of refuting. As of now, it's a tired attempt to distract.

[GreenPartyVoter]

40. Not the first time I have heard that. LOL

[Edweird]

25. Who, exactly, are you holding responsible for 'Scott Brown'?

[amborin]

28. another "WIN" : the OP says that calling out the trend toward fascism is unacceptable

oh the ludicrousness!

oh, the hypocrisy!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[okie]

32. I'll do that annoying thing where you answer a question with a question.

How would electing Martha Coakley help? Or Al Gore? Or, yes, Obama? , When I criticize the Democrats I am looking at long term trends. Sure, I'll grant that a Democrat might be friendlier to gays, or might propose a few more peanuts in what gets passed off as the 'welfare state', but what does any of that mean in the grand scheme of things? Incomes have been stagnant or in decline for close to 40 years. Unions have been decimated. We complain about the instability of the financial system, but that system has only grown influence. Climate change has not been addressed in any meaningful way. We have been in a perpetual state of warfare with enemies we have either created, or imagined. Was any of this rolled back during the Clinton years? Do we think Al Gore would have taken on any of these challenges? We've had a Democratic Congress since 2006, what has substantially changed?

[ProSense]

38. "How would electing Martha Coakley help? Or Al Gore? Or, yes, Obama? " Answer:

Anyone who can't tell the difference between Al Gore and Bush is a moron. Clear?

[okie]

42. But that dodges the point, doesn't it?

It's easy to call people morons. But I've never been interested in easy answers. The world is a complicated place. Maybe there are differences between Gore and Bush. I'm arguing they are not substantial. They just represent different sides of a system that does not work for us. Would I have preferred a Gore presidency? Sure. But I think we would still be at war in Afghanistan. I think the economy would still be in shambles. I think the ruling classes would still be acting as if they can ignore climate change. I will certainly grant that we might not be in Iraq, but I'm not positive. The Clinton administration attacked Iraq many times. And even if we hadn't invaded, hundreds of thousands would have died under the imposed sanctions. The United States inherited an empire, and empires are not friendly, even when they are not using the kind of bellicose language we heard during the Bush years.

[ProSense]

44. "It's easy to call people morons."

Would Gore have invaded Iraq, appointed Alito and Roberts to the SCOTUS, facilitated the U.S. attorney scandal?

Morons, if the shoe fit.

[okie]

45. You're not addressing what I'm saying

It's dangerous to go through life assuming everyone who puts questions to you is stupid. I said Gore might not have invaded Iraq. But I'm not certain of this. And again, the sanctions imposed under Clinton would have continued, many more would have died. The Supreme Court would have been different, obviously, and the scandals would have been different (let's not pretend that Democratic administrations have been free from scandal). But the make up of the Supreme Court is not particularly interesting to me. I go back to the trends I brought up in the original post. The Democrats cannot stop them. The Democrats are a part of those of trends, even if they present a likeable face.

[ProSense]

48. " I said Gore might not have invaded Iraq. But I'm not certain of this."

Ridiculous.

[okie]

51. Why?

He was the VP in an administration that killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis during the 90s. Be it through outright bombing or economic sanctions, make no mistake, Iraq would always have been in the crosshairs. I also contend that the class interests that brought us to Iraq under Bush would have existed under a Gore presidency. They wouldn't have the influence that someone like Cheney gave them, but Iraq is an important region, and empires have always had their sights on it.

[ProSense]

60. That's your proof Gore would have invaded Iraq? That's dumb. n/t

[okie]

69. Again, you're not reading.

I know it's typical in internet discourse to just assume everyone is an idiot, but I have addressed your point in good faith. You should do the same. I didn't say I had proof Gore would invade Iraq. In fact, you explicitly quoted me as saying I was not certain. I don't wish to sound like I'm lecturing you, but you should acknowledge this mistake.

Anyway, historical 'what ifs' are tricky. I'm not sure if a Gore administration would have sent ground troops to Iraq. I just think it was possible. But even if I'm wrong about that, does that mean we would have left Iraq alone? Certainly not. I believe that the United States, as an empire, acts in the ways we would expect an empire to act. It's a system that is not really interested in human beings, just profits. I contend that modern empires have strategic interests in the Middle East. Do you agree or disagree? I also contend that Al Gore would have been a part of this imperial machine (not the most important part, mind you, but influential). The administration that he was a part of during the 1990s brutalized Iraq. Absolutely brutalized. Do you agree or disagree? Would Gore's interests suddenly change if he was elected president? I doubt it.

[sabrina 1]

93. Gore would have invaded Iraq after 9/11 because he would

have had no choice. As for appointing Alita and Roberts, no, he wouldn't have done that imo. But, then he didn't win, did he? Maybe if he had capitulated a bit more behind closed doors, the election might not have been thrown to the one the PTBs could count on.

Democrats learned from that lesson. Lean to the right, support the Empire's wars, do nothing about holding torturers accountable, be friendly to the corporations or you won't win.

And if you think that's not true, read what whistle-blower Wendall Potter says about how the Private Insurance Ind. threatened Democrats with losing their jobs if they made any positive comments about Michael Moore's movie, Sicko. They wanted Insurance bail-outs, but THEY wanted to frame the discussion leaving out the facts about the predatory nature of their industry. And then go look to see how many Democrats stood up and called them what they are, what MM showed with proof, in his movie. Millions were spent to discredit him.

We the people, every time we cave, as just happened with the HIR bill, help the now nearly complete takeover of this government by Corporations.

Next up, Social Security.

You never answered my question. Do you support the privatization of Social Security?

[ProSense]

105. "he would have had no choice" Absolute nonsense. n/t

[sabrina 1]

113. You still have not answered my question.

'Do you support the privatization of SS?

[demosincebirth]

37. I'm with you, Pro'.

[Greyhound]

39. Ever notice that some of the same people who are advocating the corporate welfare state

while pretending to "support the people", are busy every day hijacking and diverting stories that contradict their agenda?

The favored strategy today;

Technique #3 - 'TOPIC DILUTION'
Very useful in keeping the forum readers on unrelated and non-productive issues. This is a critical and useful technique to cause a 'RESOURCE BURN.' By implementing continual and non-related postings that distract and disrupt (trolling ) the forum readers they are more effectively stopped from anything of any real productivity.

[laughingliberal]

43. Anything to keep the working class fighting over the crumbs and knocking down straw men

works well to keep us from seeing who's really screwing us. Just root for the team and accept your stagnating wages as your lot in life while we continue to funnel all your money to the top.

The Republicans distract their followers with, "Look, there's a black guy in the White House."

The Democrats do it with, "Look, there's a teabagger!" or "Look, there's Grover Norquist!"

Sorry, I'm not distracted. I have my eye exactly on the ball and that ball is the one with all the money in it.

[cali]

59. good grief. you're really doing your Walter Mitty imitation today.

:rofl:

[sabrina 1]

97. Mmm, well we can turn this into a useful thread

by sticking to real issues related to the question asked in the OP.

I, eg, have twice asked the OP if s/he supports the Privatization of Social Security. But I have not received an answer.

The reason I ask is because Democrats do not support mandated private savings accounts to be invested in the Stock Market. I have never seen a Democrat who supports that rightwing attempt to transfer the SS fund into private hands. Doing that would be another move towards Fascism, and it has always been my belief that it was the Republican Party that was taking the country in that direction.

But with the success of the Democrats in getting the job of bailing out the Private Insurance industry, it is my belief that before long, Social Security is going to be given the same treatment.

What I would like to know is how many democrats here who up to now have opposed this horrific idea, are going to change their minds if Democrats start looking like they may just be ready to do this.

But, as I said, I received no response.

[laughingliberal]

117. And you will not receive a response until the talking points have been distributed

All they have, at this point, is 'what evidence do you have that this is the plan?' or 'Nonsense.'

Beyond that they will give us their opinion as soon as someone lets them know what it is.

[sabrina 1]

118. Yes, still no resonse, so I assume you are right. When the

memo is circulated, they will know how to answer ~ silence, contrary to what they believe, speaks volumes.

[opihimoimoi]

50. Yup...Prolly Pub spies and agents here to dilute our board with shit. They come to DIVIDE US

[sabrina 1]

52. 'How did ensuring a victory for Scott Brown help?'

First, your accusation, framed as a question, that voters 'ensured' a win for Brown, is not true. The blame for Brown's victory goes directly to the Democratic Leadership who ignored and insulted the voters who put them in power. The voters responded, not by voting for Brown, but by not voting for a candidate who showed her willingness to be a 'yes' person for the party, right or wrong. This could happen on a much larger scale if the party refuses to listen to the people who elected them.

A vast majority of voters are NOT on the internet so you have no influence over their votes. That election was a warning to Democrats, either represent the people or don't expect their support. No more 'lesser of two evils' was the message. They can take it or leave it, but they DON'T get to blame the voters, as you are attempting to do.

Btw, do you support the Privatization of Social Security as the Bush administration tried to do in 2005?

[ProSense]

55. "The voters responded, not by voting for Brown, but by not voting for a candidate "

How did that work out?

This is now circular.

[sabrina 1]

It accomplished something very important, although probably

not intentionally. It exposed one of the many excuses made by the leadership of the Dem. Party that they could not include a PO because they 'couldn't get the votes'. When it was suggested that they didn't need 60 votes but could pass it by reconciliation, they called that idea 'unrealistic, impossible and naive, showing a lack of understanding of politics etc. etc.'.

When they realized though, that they no longer had the 60 votes to pass what they wanted to pass, which we now know was a corporate friendly bill without a PO, suddenly reconciliation was possible.

People don't like to be lied to, and they will remember this unfortunately.

As for the state of Mass, what it will do there is force the Dem. Party to produce a real Democratic Candidate who supports Democratic ideals when Brown's two years are up. I think that was one of the best outcomes. Hopefully someone like Capuano, who is not a war-monger or pro-corporate will consider running again, and this time he will have support from all over the country.

He can't do much harm in two years, and it's now up to the Party to provide a candidate that Mass Democrats can be enthusiastic about.

So yes, from a progressive pov, whether intentionally or not, sometimes it takes losing something in order to gain even more. That IS the pragmatic view of things, is it not?

[tekisui]

54. There you are blaming the voter again.

A sure sign of weakness.

[Echo In Light]

56. It's an indirect jab at the Chris Hedges article(s) I posted

[ProSense]

57. You're right

voters win when Republicans win. Voters don't lose, only the Democratic Party loses. It's okay to not vote, that'll show the Dems.

[tekisui]

64. I never said it was a win for the voters.

Nor did I suggest I wouldn't vote.

It is weak, though, to blame the voters for an outcome. Blame the candidate for not winning.

[treestar]

77. The poor helpless voters!

They have no control over who they vote for! :sarcasm:

This is a government of the people, is it not?

[tekisui]

79. It is the responsibility of the candidate to bring the

voter into a winning coalition. This is pretty basic stuff.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

58. The votes of the left are available to the Democrats.....if they earn them.

If not, they don't get them.

How's that for "reality"?

[ProSense]

61. Fine,

you get Republicans. Live with it.

On edit: The Democrats who voted for Brown or sat out the election, do they get to complain about Republicans getting their way?

[depakid]

66. "Live with it. "

When its 6 one way, half dozen the other on many issues that what people do.

And more and more say:

"Why bother" or vote 3rd party.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

67. Why not? It's still their government.

In a democracy it's the job of the politicians to convince the voters to vote for them. The Democrats failed to do that.

So, who's to blame? The voters? Or, the politicians who failed to attract their votes?

[laughingliberal]

72. That's the point the loyalists will never see

It is the fault of our elected officials if they do not enact policies that translate to real help for real people.

My party right or wrong is not working for a lot of people, now. Get the damned Goldman Sachs' people out of the administration and start siding with some populists. Playing footsies with banksters and wealthy corporate interests for a over a year has not convince anyone the Democrats are on their side.

We all know the Republicans won't do anything to help them, either. But the average voter does not reason it out that far.

[laughingliberal]

68. It is a problem in a 2 party system. People are stuck with one or another

and when neither is standing up for them, they just tune out, hunker down and try to weather the storms.

And we let the teabaggers, funded by wealthy corporate interests coopt the populist rage by not standing up to the corporate interests who orchestrated the destruction of the lives of a great many Americans. They want someone to make it stop. The Democrats have made half hearted, ineffective, sham attempts to stop the theft of our nation. It's not bee persuasive for most people. You seem to think most voters have the analytic skills of the people on DU. They do not. The know their lives suck and they see the Democrats standing with those who made their lives suck. That's it. That's as far as they can see. We need to start speaking to the problems people are having and doing something about them. And not just doing some corporate approved, voluntary participation in the program 'something.'

Calling the banksters 'fat cats' is all well and good. But letting business as usual continue is not compelling evidence of standing up for the people. It's time to get the Goldman Sachs guys out of the administration and embrace Warren and Volcker at the very least.

[bvar22]

91. THAT won't be the fault of "The Voters".

That will be the absolute fault of the Democratic Party Leadership...just like it was in 2000.
Blaming the Voters is just a way of NOT looking at the REAL problem.
By moving so far to the Big Business, Religious, Anti-LABOR, Pro-WAR Right, they HAVE left a BIG vacuum on The Left.
Vacuums WILL be filled.
Its Physics...AND Politics.

Blaming the Voters is nothing more than trying to evade responsibility, and avoid addressing the REAL problems.

[sabrina 1]

100. What they got was the attention of the party who had ignored

them until then. And what they will now get in Mass. is a real progressive candidate, because now the Party knows the old 'lesser evil' ploy doesn't work anymore. Btw, you might want to remember that yourself.

I think it is a great outcome, for the people of Mass. They lost a little although not much, and they stand to gain a lot. This is what was badly needed to wake up this party. It happened in two other states also. No enthusiasm from the base means a party loses. Only a completely incompetent party would allow that to happen which is why Dems lost Ted Kennedy's seat. They took their base for granted. I hope they learned something from it, it was a disgrace for them to lose that seat.

[treestar]

78. If you stay home, your opinion won't matter anyway.

Anyone who doesn't vote by choice - it's their own damn fault and no one has to listen to them.

How did the Republicans "earn" your votes?

Punishing politicians to get them to vote your way is not going to work. This isn't a case of "earning" but a matter of what do you want to end up with? Your vote does not count more than anyone else's just because you are righteous.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

80. Well, I'm sure as hell not going to waste it on politicians I don't agree with.

The Republicans have never earned my vote. Democrats have. 3rd Party candidates have.

I'm not punishing anyone. I'm voting for the candidates I agree with.

I never said that my vote counted for more than anyone else's, though in senatorial races it does count more than those in NY and less than those in N.D.

I'm sure as hell not going to "end up with" much of what I want by trusting a bunch of politicians to run things.

[xultar]

63. Looks like someone needs to get some fresh air. Step away from the computer.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

70. Nope.

[mmonk]

71. How does ensuring Ben Nelson or Blanche Lincoln help?

[laughingliberal]

73. Exactly! And what are we to think when the President endorses Lincoln

against a progressive primary challenger while Lincoln brags about thwarting the Democratic agenda in her ads? Does not look as if the progressive agenda is very important to them, does it?

[mitchtv]

75. casea in point

who needs "dems" like that? A stab in the back is just like a stab in the chest

[mitchtv]

74. Nope never noticed anything like that, sorry

I never helped Brown or said we were becoming fascist. Yet, I have threatened to "not support" "the Democrats". I have votedfor them for 40 years or so, and I amm getting real tired of being lied too. "We're not as bad as the pugs" just doesn't work for me any longer.I communicate as much to my Union as well. Enough of your divisionism

[Bluenorthwest]

76. No wonder you stick to blue links

And repeated questions. This is like the ravings of the March Hare. Cut and paste is clearly the form to stick to.

[fascisthunter]

81. notice how you complain about those

who point out uncomfortable truths you just don't want to acknowledge.

[Name removed]

86. Deleted message

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

[fascisthunter]

87. that's sad...

if we as a party can't look a truth in the eye, we are collectively proving McKinney's point.

[branders seine]

83. your implied warrant that opponents of an increasingly pro-corporate Democratic Party

are to "blame" for Scott Brown's election needs some support.

It is equally valid to claim that he won because Democrats in Congress DO behave like rapublicans.

Of course, logic is seldom involved in this kind of bomb-throwing.

[ClassWarrior]

84. Why are you so afraid of criticism? President Obama himself welcomes opposing opinions...

...but you seem so desperately scared of constructive criticism that you label it as "denunciation" and paint all critics with the same broad brush.

Don't you have faith in President Obama and the value of honest debate, Fonz?

NGU.

[ClassWarrior]

85. And by the way, the ones who dropped the ball for Martha Coakley were the President's people......

...at OFA:

Yet rather than heeding the lessons of Obama's historic victory, Plouffe and OFA permitted Martha Coakley to fumble away Kennedy's seat — destroying the 60-vote supermajority the Democrats need to pass major legislation. In December and early January, when it should have been gearing up the patented Obama turnout machine — targeting voters on college campuses, trumpeting the chance to make history by electing Massachusetts' first female senator — OFA was asking local activists to make phone calls to other states to shore up support for health care reform. "Our Massachusetts volunteers were calling into Pennsylvania or Ohio to recruit volunteers in support of the president's agenda," admits OFA director Mitch Stewart.

It wasn't until 10 days before the election, after OFA finally woke up to Coakley's cratering poll numbers, that the group sent out an urgent appeal to members, asking them to help turn out Massachusetts voters from phone banks across the country. But after having been sidelined by the White House for most of its first year, OFA discovered that most of its 13 million supporters had tuned out. Only 45,000 members responded to the last-minute call to arms.

In the final week, volunteers organized 1,000 phone banks and placed more than 2.3 million calls to Massachusetts. OFA also scrambled to place 50 staffers in the state to gin up a door-knocking operation. But it was too late: In a race decided by 110,000 votes, 850,000 of those who voted for Obama in Massachusetts failed to turn out for Coakley. "The relationship-building process we did with Obama for America," concedes Stewart, "is not something you can manufacture in three weeks."

The failure to reignite Obama's once indomitable field operation has left many of the president's former campaign staff shaking their heads. "How in the hell did we let that happen in Massachusetts?" asks Temo Figueroa, who served as Obama's national field director and is now a political consultant in Texas. "How in the hell did the White House not get Organizing for America seriously engaged in this until there was a week and a half to go?"...

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/31961846/no_we_cant/print

NGU.

[Lord Helmet]

106. here's another taken on that --

Looks like Puma Coakley didn't want any help from the White House until it was too late.

History ...

LINK

Coakley Snubbed Obama at Boston Birthday Bash in 2008

January 16, 2010

With the President traveling to Massachusetts tomorrow in a last ditch effort to bail out Martha Coakley’s faltering Senate campaign, I think this blast from the past is especially timely. One of the focal points of the Obama-Hillary rift during the Democratic primary was Massachusetts, with the Kennedy clan famously turning on the Clintons to support Obama’s candidacy, and with Hillary still going on to an easy win in the Massachusetts primary.

The primary was in early February 2008. On August 4, 2008, just 3 weeks before the Democratic National Convention in Denver, Massachusetts Democrats held a very high profile birthday fundraiser for Obama in Boston. As the Boston Globe reported:

Boston’s biggest names in Democratic politics, divided into two camps during the bitter presidential primary, united last night to throw Barack Obama a 47th birthday bash that doubled as a major campaign fund-raiser…

The private fund-raiser, the Illinois senator’s first Boston appearance since clinching the Democratic nomination in early June, was designed to be a coming-together of sorts for local supporters of Obama and Senator Hillary Clinton, whose backers were deeply angry at how they believed Clinton was treated by the media and some Obama surrogates during the prolonged primaries…

A host of prominent local figures were on hand, including Governor Deval Patrick; Senator John F. Kerry; US Representatives Edward Markey and William Delahunt; Boston’s mayor, Thomas M. Menino; and former governor Michael Dukakis.

Noticeably absent from this list was none other than Massachusetts Attorney General and long-time Hillary Clinton supporter, Martha Coakley. An NPR report from the time confirms she was not in attendance.

-- snip

In fact Coakley was such a supporter of “the candidate” that just 3 weeks later, as an official delegate representing the State of Massachusetts at the Democratic National Convention, she voted for HILLARY CLINTON even after Clinton had formally released all of her delegates to vote for Obama!

Ah, you have to love politics. LOVE…IT.

So here we have Martha Coakley, who less than 18 months ago could not see her way to shelling out a measly $1000 in a gesture of party unity (and on Obama’s birthday no less), now hoping beyond hope for Obama to save her campaign this weekend. Then you have Obama, who is forced to put aside Coakley’s petty back-stabbing and campaign for her this weekend, only to risk even further emasculation of his political clout on the very real possibility that Coakley loses to Scott Brown on Tuesday. All because the centerpiece of his legislative agenda for all of 2009 – ObamaCare – is on the verge of going down in flames.

[grahamhgreen]

88. FAIL. Scott Brown's victory was the pro-corporate Dems fault, not ours. Nice re-framing try.

[inna]

89. Yet another massive fail of a thread.

Keep them coming. At least you're consistent.

[xultar]

114. [phone] gazillion brazillion trillion billion million trillion cicillion hillion

[mkultra]

92. actually, they seem to be anti-government

in the exact same way as the teahadists

[bvar22]

94. Oh my!

"When given the choice between a Republican, and a Democrat who acts like a Republican, the voters will choose the Republican every time." ---Harry Truman

QED Massachusetts

LESS than 35% of ALL the American people support Mandates without a Public Option....

and YOU are going to blame The Voters?

[Ignis]

98. The voters don't pay well.

[ProSense]

103. True, he said that,

but he never said it was the smart thing to do.

[alarimer]

95. We will never change the Democratic Party unless we apply pressure.

The best way is to encourage primary challenges from the left. I think 90% of the Democrats in Congress need primary challengers. Hell, I think everyone needs a primary challenger. The problem is not fascism (although I think Tea Partiers are authoritarians who would like nothing more than a fascist takeover. We aren't there. Yet.) but corporatism along with incumbency.

It is far too easy for incumbents to be re-elected. I think term limits might be a very good idea. It might be the only tool we have to get the 90% of Democrats who are worthless to get them out of there.

I also support third party efforts but at the local level first. You have to build a party from the grassroots up; you can't just start at the top or even with Congress. Parties in the past have come and gone. There is no reason why that shouldn't happen these days. The only reason it doesn't is that incumbents are too hard to get rid of.

[ProSense]

102. Well

applying pressure doesn't equal allowing the Republicans to win or pretending that there is no difference.

[ClassWarrior]

104. Tell it to OFA. And who's pretending there's no difference?

NGU.

[hughee99]

101. What will make this country truly free is blind, unwavering allegiance

to a political party. Regardless of how our party behaves, or the policies they support or enact, we must be resolute in our determination to make sure our support is always a forgone conclusion. Only then will they be free to follow the will of the people.

[ShortnFiery]

107. You know, I don't mind you promoting The Party, but there's no good in attacking other democrats.

Hell, it could be against the rules of "calling people out?" :shrug:

[ProSense]

110. "no good in attacking other democrats"

:rofl:

[ShortnFiery]

111. You had such an affinity for that ROFL emoticon. May you always have it at hand. eom

[Name removed]

109. Deleted message

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

[ProSense]

112. .

Who are you?

[Name removed]

119. Deleted message

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