Why should I vote for Obama next year?

[MadHound]

As a teacher, he has damaged my career, and continue to tear down education in general, reinforcing the horrors of NCLB with his own program of public education destruction, Race to the Top. As a teacher, why should I vote for Obama?

As a person opposed to imperial wars, I have watched as Obama has doubled down on one war, gotten us involved in another illegal, immoral war, and initiated smaller conflicts elsewhere. I have seen the horrors of war increase, as innocents as killed, many by remote control. As an anti-war person, why should I vote for Obama?

As a civil libertarian, I have seen Obama not only utilize the illegal, immoral practices of his predecessor, but expand upon them as well. Warrantless wiretapping, GPS attached to your vehicle, the list of grievances in regards to our disappearing civil liberties is long, and growing. As a civil libertarian, why should I vote for Obama?

As a person who opposes US atrocities abroad I watched Obama's failure to close Gitmo. I've also observed that he has not closed similar facilities at Bagram AFB or in Somalia. He made a promise to close Gitmo, and instead, he has expanded the horrors of Gitmo. As one who believes in human rights, why should I vote for Obama?

As one who wants to end this War on Drugs, I've seen this administration open up a war on medical marijuana. Disregarding the will of the people, disregarding what he is doing to those who are sick and ill, Obama has continued and expanded upon the process of shutting down clinics and providers. As one who, like most other folks, believes in legalizing pot, why should I vote for Obama?

As a person who is in late middle age, I am watching as both Social Security and Medicare are being eyed for the chopping block. First with the Catfood Commission, and now the Super Congress, this administration is showing a willingness to cut into these once sacred cows. As one who is of an age where I'm too young to be grandfathered in, and too old to truly prepare for such cuts, why should I vote for Obama?

As a person who believes that we should have a single payer universal health care system, I watched as Obama dropped the ball on the public option, even though the public overwhelmingly supported it. Worse, I watched as mandated monopoly for the insurance industry has been set up, one with few constraints and few price controls. As one who doesn't want to pay my life savings to the insurance industry, why should I vote for Obama?

As a person who has friends and family who are gay, I have seen this family drag its feet. DADT wasn't repealed because of the work of this administration so much as because the legal challenges that were beating it into the dust. As far as DOMA goes, the legalization of same sex marriage has been the province of the states, at the federal level, where, Obama's opinion is still "evolving". Was a friend of the LGBT community, why should I vote for Obama.

As one who has economic common sense, I have watched as this president has backed down from fighting the 'Pugs on issues of basic economic sense time and again. The president has allowed this country to be taken hostage by the hard right time and again, and each time, in a misguided spirit of being the Great Compromiser, he caves, and allows the hard right to set economic policy, policy which is doing harm to this country. As one who believes in economic common sense, why should I vote for Obama.

As somebody who is unemployed, I have watched this administration absolutely fail when it comes to this issue. The stimulus was a diluted package of tax cuts and tax credits designed to carry forth the standard supply side philosophy of job creation, give money to the rich and see if it trickles down. As one who is still looking for work over a year after graduation, why should I vote for Obama?

Yes, I know all the standard replies, "Well, you want to see Palin, Bachman, insert crazy RW idiot here, to be President?" No, I don't, let's get that straight right now.

What I am trying to point out here is that if all a candidate has to rely on to get votes is fear of the dreaded other, then that candidate is most likely going to lose. People in this country want to vote for a candidate, not simply against the other guy. They want to vote for a platform and ideology, not against the opposing world view. They want to vote for a good record of achievements, not simply against the possibility of an even more abysmal possibility on the other side.

People want to vote for the positive, not simply vote against the negative. When they can't do that, when they don't feel they are voting for something, but simply are voting against something, this is when apathy takes over and people stay home in droves.

In 2008 voting for Obama was, for many, many people, voting for hope and change. That is why Obama received the votes of people who hadn't voted for years, decades, if at all. The opportunity to vote for something energized them and got them to the polls.

So for however, next year is looking a lot different. As we've seen, the enthusiasm for Obama is decreasing across the board. Obama, instead of bringing hope and change has instead dashed hopes and the only change has been for the worse. Without a record of major achievements that voters can vote for all that is left is hyping the fear factor, pleading, urging, bullying people to vote against whatever the 'Pugs toss up.

That way lies apathy, and with apathy, Obama will lose.

There is however still time, but Obama is going to have to change tack. Instead of being the Great Compromiser who can't negotiate his way out of a wet paper bag, Obama is going to have to become a fighter. He needs to start introducing some bold programs to change the course our country is on, and then tap into his inner LBJ, get down and dirty and fight for them, even if he fails. He needs to do this in order to give people something to vote for

If he doesn't do this, then frankly, he's already lost. Apathy will take over and he will go quietly into that good night.

It's his choice, fight and possibly win, compromise and surely lose.

[hlthe2b]

1. I feel your pain...

Disappointment is hardly motivating... I guess we'll have to see if the very real fear of the "alternative" will trump that disappointment.

It is very very hard to retain any optimism, though. sigh....

[JDPriestly]

231. I think people will vote for a liberal alternative to Obama.

[cliffordu]

253. lol.

[SoCalDem]

271. Good luck with that one

:rofl:

[inna]

272. oh, absolutely - *if* we lived in a democracy. Unfortunately, we do not

(despite some people's beliefs to the contrary).

[Mosaic]

288. Some real political people are looking to primary him

In California, hopefully as California goes so does the nation. Us internet activists can inspire, but I'm glad to see some real political types taking action.

[Le Taz Hot]

310. The Progresive Caucus of the California Democratic Party

wrote a resolution that proposed looking for liberal candidates to primary Obama. It's not even scheduled for a vote on the CDP floor. Resolutions are routine with committees. It's what they do. Pretty much the ONLY thing they do. It makes them believe they're actually part of the political process when, in fact, all decisions are made in back rooms by a select few. I say this as an ex E-Board member with the CDP. Sorry to say I think you're putting much more into this that actually exists. (Not that I wouldn't LOVE to see a primary challenger, you understand.)

[verges]

291. I had not heard that one was running? Who?

[Donnachaidh]

2. k&r

Thank you for such a thoughtful post!

[SugarShack]

66. I always believed he was there to be a "one term louie"

[soleft]

3. And you'll do so much under President Romney

If only so many people hadn't said - why should I vote for Gore? I think things might be a little bit different now.

[MadHound]

6. Thank you for proving my point,

You did it so well, so eloquent.

And no, this is not sarcasm.

[Fuddnik]

7. That's really getting old.

At this point, the only thing worse would be Pat Robertson.

[bigmonkey]

181. Ridiculous.

You're hyping your rhetoric to "win" the argument, and leaving reality behind. There's a difference between things that are on one end of a continuum and things on the other. Fascism, for instance - Too much control by the wealthy may fit the definition. That, combined with rounding up the opposition and shooting them dead, also fits the definition, and is much worse. Do you really believe that it's a good strategy to continually refuse to cooperate unless you get everything you want?

[JDPriestly]

234. It isn't a matter of "getting everything you want."

As the OP points out, it's a matter of standing up for what you believe in. If Obama had done a few of the things that would be good for working people, for human rights, for Democratic ideals, we wouldn't ask too much. But Obama has let us down over and over and over and over. The list is just too long. It is as if Obama went out of his way to snub and disappoint liberals.

I think we will have an alternative to Obama. We will have a liberal candidate that we can support.

Right now, liberals in congress are challenging Obama on the issues, waiting to see whether he responds. But sooner or later, they will agree with us that we cannot just allow Obama to continue as though he really were a Democrat when he is not.

[lib_wit_it]

257. Why not? It works for the Teapers.

[sendero]

273. One thing you.

.... "but he's better than a Republican" folks don't get is .... he isn't.

He is DESTROYING everything the Democrats have stood for for decades. He really IS worse than a Republican. It's not just Obama ruining the reputation of Obama, he is ruining the reputation of the party.

Not only that, but if the country is going to hell I'd rather it be with a Republican at the wheel, and sooner rather than later. The ONLY difference between Obama and someone like Romney is that he is moving a little slower. If that is where we are going, lets get on with it because believe me, once we get there Americans are not going to sit still for it.

[SusanaMontana41]

281. The Supreme Court weighs heavily on me.

I am angry as hell at Obama but do NOT want another Scalito justice who will solidify a majority for years. The Roberts Court has done enough damage.

If I vote for Obama, it will be a game-time decision.

[mochajava666]

315. Well said

[spooked911]

322. EXACTLY-- he can destroy Dem policies in a way that Repubs could never do

because he can easily sway Dems to go along.

[Pacifist Patriot]

12. You only read the first few paragraphs didn't you?

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

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

[MessiahRp]

61. If Romney governs as he did in MA than he and Obama are the same.

Which says a lot about both. Romney is pandering to his extremists to get elected but he governs as a moderate Republican. Obama lies to his base and governs like a moderate Republican.

Both are liars, but one governs outside their party's principles and one does not.

Rp

[LeFleur1]

68. Moderate Republican

I remember moderate republicans and Obama is not a moderate Republican. We have moved so far right there is no moderate Republican. There are very few real liberal Democrats either, but there are some moderate Democrats, and Obama is not one of those either.

[MessiahRp]

79. Well you're right, but I was using today's spectrum...

Based on today Obama is a Moderate Republican. If this was two decades ago he would be further to the right than Reagan was.

Rp

[Armstead]

111. There are a LOT of real liberal Democrats and potential ones

problem is that Obama and the Conservative Democratic Establishment have chosen to stifle them, and not bother encouraging people in the real middle or even misguided conservatives put connect the dots.

[SemperEadem]

290. yeah--remember us being called "the professional left"

and just this week, we were called "fire breathing progressives".

when rahmbo was COS, he made sure that the white house line was denigrate the progressives at every turn. Obama drank that koolaid and has been chugging the shit ever since.

He had such a mandate when he entered in, but he spent waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too much time trying to "compromise" with a warren of idiots and malcontents whose only mission for that past 3 1/2 years is to destroy his presidency because they couldn't stand that a black man was president. And they had the endorsement of the terrorist tea thug treasonous hostage takers--a minority voice any way you look at it--and with that dim noise, they got the msm to collude with them on driving this country to the brink of disaster while at the same time, robbing the american people blind of their SS, Medicare and Medicaid. If they could get away with passing a law making it legal to kill poor people, you can bet they would. And Obama has been greenlighting their actions every step of the way. Biden is the only one in there with anything resembling sense. He was completely right: the tea bitches are a bunch of terrorists--domestic terrorists with grover norquist as their "kingmaker".

Obama has so gravely dropped the ball that I don't think a Democrat/progressive will get close to, let alone get a whiff, of the WH for decades to come now. He has dropped the ball in hanging this economic millstone around the necks of conservatives and tea traitors where it belongs. He has failed to do what he said he would do and he has failed to keep the spotlight on exactly whose fault is was.

If, as the aide in the room said, people could see how he took it to bonehead at the negotiation meetings, he would be re-elected in a landslide, then he needs to quit being so fucking nice about things. Time to start whippin' some ass with the truth of the matter. But he won't do it because he doesn't want to make them cry. It just makes me sick.

[Fearless]

86. It's sad but I'd tend to agree...

Not that I'm advocating for that. We dealt with him once, we don't need it again.

[Sapphocrat]

195. Oh, there are differences.

Obama never tied his dog to the roof of the car, while Romney is far more honest about his religiosity, and about his homophobia (which actually stems from his religiosity, rather than cowardly finger-in-the-wind politics -- which is another difference between him and Obama).

And then there's healthca-- oops, wait... Obamacare is Romneycare. Strike that thought.

As long as Romney's name has come up... One thing I haven't heard anyone worry about yet (and all Dems should) is that Romney is going to crow long and loud about bringing the 2002 Olympics to Utah, and the massive revenue (and jobs) it brought to the state -- as well he should, as it was quite an achievement. And since the economy is the be-all and end-all, expect that to be repeated ad nauseum throughout the Romney campaign.

What's Obama got to counter the inevitable comparisons to his disastrous mishandling of the U.S. economy from the first presidential debate on? Oh, I know! He saved the rich!

On one hand, I'd rather jam a red-hot fireplace poker through my skull than hear the phrase "President Romney." On the other hand, at least I'd know what to expect from Romney -- or any Repuke. I'd rather be stabbed in the chest by a 'puke with the balls to look me in the eye than stabbed in the back by a DINO who keeps telling me all that blood on the floor is just my imagination.

And at least everybody to the left of Attila the Hun would finally be on the same side again, stop hating one another quite so very much, and actually start working together again.

Yeah, I know: As if that's ever going to happen again. I crack myself up sometimes.

[nadinbrzezinski]

99. I love the revisionism

try to understand this, GORE WON FLORIDA, the USSC gave it to baby bush.

Stop blaming the voters.

[sabrina 1]

108. Or 'Palin' or 'Bachman'. You forgot those two!

At least you didn't try to defend the policies laid out in the OP.

:eyes:

You would think by now with so many rightfully disillusioned people they would get some new talking points and actually try to address the reasons why people are so upset with this administration.

But the OP was correct, not that it's hard to predict, someone would come along with the only defense they apparently have 'so you want Palin/Bachman/Romney for president'?

[Bluebear]

153. Maybe you're right

God that's getting old

[_ed_]

171. Obamacare = Romneycare

And their foreign policy isn't likely to differ much, right?

So what was your point?

[we can do it]

191. Why Is This Always a Response?

we CAN do better

[Danascot]

196. Gore won

It made no difference.

[leftyohiolib]

309. yeah because we stayed silent and took it

[RetroLounge]

212. There it is!

Vote for our party's shit-sandwich or vote for theirs.

Some choice.

:puke:

RL

[AngryOldDem]

314. Sadly, that's what it is, in a nutshell. n/t

[Bluesbreaker]

243. At least with Romney, more people would recognize the enemy

The Democratic Congress would have fought a Republican president had s/he tried to do many of the things that Obama does. However, although I agree with MadHound (and would go even further), there's two words that will make me vote for Obama again: Supreme Court.

[Dragonfli]

265. The Dem opposition is much stronger against a Republican than against a Republican Dem

The "false flag" fools many into thinking they should support Republican policy because it comes from someone wearing a familiar jersey.
With an honest Republican President, Democrats have been traditionally united in opposition to attacks against the policies Democrats have put in place to protect the people.

The false flag operation allows the Republicans to get done the things even a Bush couldn't pass

[PatrynXX]

254. possibly

and he's not a Christian unlike obama so that should be interesting. He'll never make it though. Good on economics but bad on everything else.

[AngryOldDem]

313. So now Romney is the threat du jour?

First it was President Palin, then President Bachmann...

That meme got old a long while back. Bottom line: A lot of us are really searching for valid reasons to give Obama a second term, because he sure as hell isn't giving us anything to make his own case.

To dismiss this genuine dilemma that a lot of us have with Obama by trotting out the equivalent of the bogeyman-under-the-bed shit you feed misbehaving children is insulting and nonproductive.

(And a lot of us did vote for Gore, and he did win. But nine people thought differently.)

[William769]

4. K&R.

[Romulox]

5. FREE TRADE + WARS IN ASIA!!!!!1!!

Um, bankster bailouts, tax cuts for the rich?

AUSTERITY!!!1!!!!!

[no_hypocrisy]

8. Because, unfortunately, it could always be worse.

President Romney
President Bachmann
President Gingrich
President Giuliani
President Christie
President Pawlenty
President Palin
President Cain
President Trump
President Santorum
President Perry
President (Jeb) Bush

Until the grassroots can produce and finance a viable candidate who can do more than win but wield leadership in the face of unimagined adversity, Obama is all we have.

[MadHound]

10. And has been shown time and again that voting against something or somebody,

Simply results in apathy among a large group of voters, and thus a loss for those who rely on fear to motivate voters. Great politicians realize this, and have always given their constituents, their base, their voters something to vote for.

[PATRICK]

286. Second term political battles

in general. A beleaguered president comes out fighting and wins by...extremely tough hard-nosed rallying of the base. Or in the Nixonian method of crippling the opposition by hook and by crook(literally). One cannot expect a cakewalk in time of economic hardship. The "war continuity" factor is blindly on the side of the leader, but as with other incumbency advantages, these are not granted to modern Dems. Ask LBJ or Nixon.

In strictly strategic terms we are hearing more and more reliance on the dread 2%(whatever) of the most sop brained TV fed independent voters who are the true marketing base of (GOP leaning)pollsters. The big money pouring in from the overfed billionaires is only a tease compared to what is waiting should the GOP nominate someone who could avoid shooting their foot off with a water pistol. The common man base is broke, the left activists turned off with extreme WH prejudice. The left wing base, whatever that means, cannot swallow the pain and save him in any event. Irrelevance not only results from being shut out of the game entirely but having no united clout or leadership of its own. Unlike the perpetually uncommitted and badly informed mush independent they IRRITATE because they have better ideas than the WH if not a loud enough voice. Nothing is so anathema as a disagreement among allies. The WH prefers its rabid, incredibly neanrderthal enemies who insult him daily as they "allow" him to deal down hopelessly toward the mush.

Bad bad political sense, yet everyone holding high office and much of the lower practices crap daily. Careers are not made by good politics but by selling out to fat cats and corruption. The skills are corrupt, the lies reinforced by false national "journalism" and have always been in American politics- even after Hoover.

What Obama expects from a campaign can't happen this time. Whatever the grass roots show looks like, this will be standard incumbency muscle(sans pork) and kingly gravitas against the ludicrous garbage the GOP will be allowed to present as not only a viable contender- but a likely winner(remember Dewey). It will be sick lustreless campaign well in the spirit of the broke, jaded times. Maybe Pataki or Romney will stumble and let slip a "secret plan to end the war" comment that gave Nixon a false and lucky break.

With wars over, the burden of robber baron ransoms will fall on SS and Medicare, for which the "moderate Republican" will have no responsibility and need now do absolutely nothing.

As to the poster, however. I hope people realize this is still a moderate response to the WH record, giving a benefit of the doubt one would think impossible from someone involved in the gratuitous rape of the education system for private profit. All the other policies, more deadly and dangerous to human rights that they may be, might be the gist of rationalization. Education is not. No taxpayer money needed to be flushed into millionaiores' pockets while gutting unions and public schools in a time of dire need. This one, uncoerced and prejudicial attack on education says it all. It seems to give one the assurance that all the other policies are likewise deliberate, unforced and malignant, but heaven forbid that the clarity of the evidence goes that far.

As they were unintelligent and easily satiated by bullying and hate, the Bush base was pissed on a bit and kept at any distance the WH wished at that time. The intelligent, public service oriented are still reeling in denial that there still exists higher quality leaders loftily doing the same to them and the values they serve.

And even if this is too bitter and misinformed. Even if the blowback from a few DU defenders does not also contain the same haughty, insulting tone and I were absolutely or in great part wrong about the plain evidence, this is no way to win an election, hoping that the people that buy you the office can't find the replacement they so fondly desire, plugging into MSM murk that is fundamentally anti-democratic.

He will lose with or without left support, but you know who will get blamed. That is also a characteristic of this kind of falling out. The last deception is that the prez "took the bullet" for saving America, yet the real world bleeding is all ours. Nor is the economy saved. Nor the planet. Nor plain old human dignity.

[elocs]

17. The sad, simple, & realistic answer is that the next president will either be Obama

or someone from your list.

In a perfect world we would always have a candidate that we could gushingly support. This ain't it and even if people choose not to vote they will get either Obama or the Republican candidate. That's it.

Bottom line: it's insane for anyone to claim or believe that Obama, no matter how disappointing he may have been, is exactly the same as the Republicans running.

Not voting was a choice made by many Democrats here in Wisconsin last November and the results have not been pretty with the Republicans controlling the governorship, both house of the legislature as well as the state supreme court. If you really want to know what hell is like, then allow that to happen on the federal level and you'll know.

[Bluenorthwest]

37. Ok. Here in Oregon, we had a 70% + turn out in 2010

And we elected Democrats while speaking our minds about Obama policy issues. We Got The Vote Out. When I hear a Democrat in a State that did not GOTV and did not elect Democrats preaching that others should be more like they are, I have to wonder why anyone would pattern after that. You say 'many in Wisconsin' did not vote. I conclude from that that the other Democrats failed to put forth a message that motivated them. It is amusing that you can say to others 'don't allow that to happen on the federal level' without admitting that Democrats in your State allowed it to happen there.
What do you think failed in WI, compared to Oregon, where we voted and Democrats won? Do you think it is possible that the style you promote here lost that election, while the candidates and places where Democrats held Democratic principles rather than loyalty to another politician won and won big?
Just know that as long as we are winning, we are not very prone to take advice from Wisconsin Democrats on how to win. Nor on how to get out the vote.
Sorry about that.

[JDPriestly]

239. We in California also voted. And we elected Democrats, lots of them.

[Martin Eden]

120. Stop making sense.

It interferes with the temporary satisfaction of pretending otherwise.

[sudopod]

134. Against the power of Mordor, there can be no victory. nt

[JDPriestly]

238. What are you going to say when a truly liberal candidate puts

his hat in the ring?

What excuse will you have then?

[dpbrown]

242. You said it all. Until the grassroots can produce and finance a viable candidate...

That's what it's really all about. Obama doesn't have to care about the left because the left is disorganized. Get organized and you'll get your way. That's politics.

[oldbanjo]

299. Your right and as long as Republians are signing pledges

we don't need any of them in office. How in the world can a politician vote to improve this country after signing a pledge to anyone. Anyone that signs a pledge should be thrown out of office.

[uponit7771]

9. OBAMAPROMISEMETER!!!!! That's why, come on people this gets childish

[MadHound]

13. At some point promises need to be overtaken by deeds.

And the fact of the matter is that Obama has few deeds in his resume to warrant people voting for them.

[BNJMN]

69. BS.

http://whatthefuckhasobamadonesofar.com/

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/

[MadHound]

74. Ah yes, The List™

Look, being political junkies, we know lots of minutia, both good and bad. But the simple fact of the matter is that the average person out there doesn't know this minutia, and The List™ simply won't cut it. The public looks at the big things, tax cuts for the rich, DOMA, the debt ceiling debacle, etc. etc. and they don't see wins there, they see nothing they can vote for. So as a political junkie you can scream The List™ to your heart's content, but it is not going to do a damn thing.

[BNJMN]

117. I thing a list is exactly what the public needs. It reminds me of what he's done. [nt]

[Armstead]

131. Gilding Lillies

I don't think anyone denies what has been done positively, especially compared to a Real Republican.

However, there is a bigger balance sheet of unkept promises and, worse, things he has done that is contrary to even his flowery rhetoric andf counterproductive for actually bringing back a REAL balance of liberalism into the system.

[BNJMN]

135. Got an Anti-List List? For those of us too busy to poke around on our own?

Far as I can tell, he's not doing too bad:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/

I mean, for a centrist, which everyone knew from the get go.
The primaries are rigged, if you ask me. But no one says scratch about that here, so...

[Armstead]

160. The OP is one good list...There are many others, including

Many other posts on DU (including originals and reposted articles) as well as in the print and broadcast media, and all over the Internets.

I don't have time to go out looking for you, but good places to start are The Nation, MSNBC (Rachael Maddow especially), Common Cause website, etc.etc.etc.

[BNJMN]

So in other words, you're talking out your bum and don't have links to back up yr bellyaching.

Or am I supposed to back up your claims for you?
And take the vague words of the OP for fact?

lol.
Puh-leese.
--------------------------------->Next?

[Armstead]

174. That is a classic right-wing message board tactic. LOL

If you don't bother to read or watch television or peruse the Internet for varying views and information, you are not worth the time to reply to.

buh-bye

[October]

180. Yes, this one's quite transparent

Stirring it up...

[BNJMN]

183. Yes, my support of the Prez clearly.... clearly outs me as a T-Bagger. Genius. lol

nt

[October]

186. What support?

"The prez?" Really?

[FedUp_Queer]

240. No.

Just someone nobody should take seriously.

[BNJMN]

184. Asking for a reputable link to back up your post is the OPPOSITE of a typical RW tactic. Good try?

No, not really.
You can do better.

[Armstead]

199. The last refuge.....

You know damn well what the information and sources I am basing my opinion on.

I have no problem if you disagree with it. But don't play dumb by demanding links that you know of already.

That game is very predictable. Even if I were to go out in good faith and find a lot of links to a lot of sources, your response would be: "No not good enough. Those sources are all wrong, biased (fill in the blank)..."

Sorry, I'm not playing.

[Divernan]

218. You're so right about that game. I got suckered into it once.

I researched and laid out 8 concrete examples, with citations, only to be met with "You still haven't answered my question!" They ask for "A" and you give them "A", and then they say, "But what about B". They can keep it up forever without ever responding to the substance of the thread.

I've concluded that such a tactic is designed solely to diminish and trivialize the content and level of political discussion on Democratic Underground, and thereby destroy DU as a progressive blog which informs and educates independents, reporters, etc.

Any thread which can be considered to present a criticism of Obama or any of his appointees is targeted by these posters to change it into a flame fest. Another recent development is seeing Obama's true believers posting responses which are truly nonsensical, fractured strings of words. It's like they hired Sarah Palin to teach them how to write word salad.

[Armstead]

235. It's popular among real right wingers

I used to occasionally go on mixed or right wing sites to debate...(I know, silly me).

That tactic iof "show me a link" was favorite of conservatives. It was very predictable.....So a little alarm goes off whenever I see it here.

Nevertheless it is a shame here that serious, piotentially meaty threads do get hihackefb into flame fests so often. I don't mind healthy disagreement, but I hate when it gets personal......I sometimes get caught up in myself, I must admit, but it's usually only when provoked.... I'd rather stick to the subject.

[GOTV]

304. I'd like to plug posting links even though it usually doesn't convince the other poster ...

... there may be many confused or unsure lurkers who you educate and influence by posting the links even if you won't ultimately get that one person to concede.

It's good to bring up supporting evidence.

[Armstead]

306. Sure i agree -- Biut there is a difference between that and what I am referring to

Posting links to bolster a point is helpful. So is doing it in response to good-faith questions and requests.

But I am not talking about that...I'm referring to a popjular strategy where no matter what one says -- no matter how obvious -- it's "Show me a link" and when a link is offered it is never good enough, and on and on.

[Vattel]

276. I know exactly what you mean. I'm not playing anymore either.

[Creideiki]

283. It's become known in debating circles as a Gish Gallop

Commonly used in AGW debates. Throw out tons of points (usually in the form of the canned List) to exhaust the other person. Then if a single "counter-example" isn't answered, then they claim that you haven't an answer for any of their points. It's tiring, but it's meant to be tiring. I don't have the time to engage in that crap.

[A Simple Game]

296. Why would you insult two posters that have a combined total of about 60,000 posts.

I know prolific does not equal correct, well in this case it does, but it does indicate that the person is involved, pays attention, and in this case cares about politics. That in it's self deserves some respect, well that and the fact that they are correct.

As to the OP being vague, how so? I had no trouble understanding the words and meanings behind the post. I also happen to agree with each point. Don't you think that the points were true? It's up to you to show proof of your doubt, or is your time more valuable than other peoples time.

You can disagree without being insulting, try it.

[Armstead]

129. LOL....Love the trademark

[ihavenobias]

185. Actually

Those of us who do pay attention to the details realize that the health care 'reform' has done/will do almost nothing to contain rising costs in any meaningful way, that the stimulus was far too small and had far too many tax cuts, that the financial "reform" did NOTHING to address the underlying causes of the last collapse meaning we can look forward to another, bigger collapse...

Yes, there were a number of small victories, or larger victories on social issues. But on bread and butter issues just calling things that pass "historic" does not make them worthwhile on the substance.

And obviously it's fair to compare what we got versus what we could've gotten. And no, I'm not being unreasonable guy who expects that, for example, that we could've gotten single payer healthcare. No way that would've passed. But that should've been the opening offer from Obama and the Democrats, knowing full well the Republicans would reject the opening offer. In that case we could've negotiated down to the public option.

Instead we *started* with the public option knowing it would be cut in half and cut in half again...Obama *starts* with half-a-loaf and in the end we get crumbs. It's Negotiation 101, you NEVER make your opening offer what you hope to end up with, you always make it larger. You know, like if you want to sell your house for $300k, you don't list it at 300k, you list it at 400k or 350k, etc. Obama opens with 250k and sells it for 175k (then proudly proclaims that the sale was "historic" and adds it to the list of accomplishments because after all, he DID sell the house, right?).

[October]

89. "The List" does not address the OP's "losses" or concerns.

Meanwhile, recent legislation has an immediate negative effect and we need a list to remind us of some of the positive points because they're small in comparison to the losses.

[BNJMN]

116. Well, ineffectual bellyaching never was my cup of tea. 'Obama needs to fight harder'? This is news?

To who?

[October]

123. Tea, huh? Well, I prefer coffee. And lists of minutiae aren't my favorite.

Not news, perhaps, but we need to stay aware of how policies and so-called bipartisanship directly affects us, and insults our Democratic ideals.

[BNJMN]

142. "Tea, huh?" Says the person disparaging the Democratic Prez. lol

Whatever.
:D

[October]

182. You're the one who said the president needs to fight harder

and then you sarcastically added, "This is news?"

So transparent. I've seen this tactic around here before.

[FedUp_Queer]

247. He's fought plenty hard...and gotten the things he wanted.

Tax cuts for the rich.

30 million customers for his health care corporate contributors.

The end of Social Security and Medicare.

Government immunity from warrantless wiretapping lawsuits.

Indefinite detention (even for acquitted people).

As far as any semblance of a liberal or "centrist" agenda, I realized I didn't want him to fight harder. I wanted him to fight at all. Then I had my Occam's Razor moment and realized he's a conservative, and he was fighting for, and winning, the things conservatives fight for.

[FedUp_Queer]

248. He's fought pretty hard...and gotten the things he wanted.

Tax cuts for the rich.

30 million customers for his health care corporate contributors.

The end of Social Security and Medicare.

Government immunity from warrantless wiretapping lawsuits.

Indefinite detention (even for acquitted people).

As far as any semblance of a liberal or "centrist" agenda, I realized I didn't want him to fight harder. I wanted him to fight at all. Then I had my Occam's Razor moment and realized he's a conservative, and he was fighting for, and winning, the things conservatives fight for.

[eilen]

298. Like these:

1. TARP. While technically signed into law by Bush, it was passed because Obama whipped for it. It is legalistic fantasy to call this a "Bush" policy, when it would have failed had Bush been the only one behind it.

2. Reappointment of Bernanke. Of a piece with TARP, it is fantasy to say that TARP is a Bush policy alone, when Obama re-appointed one of its two architects.

3. The Middle Class Tax Cut Bill. Obama stated early what he wanted the stimulus to be, in both size and percentage of tax cuts to spending. The evidence at the time was that tax cuts would do less for the economy than spending, and that the entire package was too small. Obama's advisors, including Romer, lied to sell the package. That's lied. With an "L." It blunted the fall, but did not reverse it.

4. Failure to restructure: other than raising cafe standards, and a few very small and marginal tax breaks, there was no progress in addressing the problem that structurally, Americans are rewarded for extracting rents: health care, defense, telecom, finance, or generating suburban sprawl, which creates a demand for imported oil, which is another rent. Instead...

5. Failure to break the banks. This was the key, the American financial system, more than any other single group, created the crash, and rewarded itself. As long as the banks are in place, they will have the money to buy influence, even among those who do not want it to be so. At the end of the day, all rents must be laundered through the banking system so that those collecting them can cash out and consume.

6. So called Health Care Reform, which is simply a law requiring everyone to pay health insurance companies high rates in return for a few consumer protections. It would be like a law requiring everyone to buy a first class air line ticket, with the assurance that you won't have to sit with your foot in your ear.

7. Failure to end the wars, and shift the expenditure of the bloated defense and security budget to productive ends.

8. Failure to engage in the simple act of removing the dictator of Libya once that course was decided upon, and allowing the rest of the Arab Spring to become like the Revolution of 1830 in France: replace one dictator with another. In case you don't know they are still beating protestors in Egypt.

9. Failure to engage the Eurozone to make a full resolution to their debt problems.

10. Failure to address the ongoing protectionism in China.

11. Failure, abject failure, to address global warming, which is of a piece with 4. So far the plan is let the sun dim and volcanos erupt.

12. Failure to provide effective regulation in a host of areas. Dodd-Frank is, effectively, an act that provides a few gifts for upper middle class checking accounts, while leaving millions to be sucked dry by "pay day loans."
http://symbalitics.blogspot.com/2011/07/new-entrant-for-worst-president-ever.html

[FedUp_Queer]

318. Damn.

I had a feeling I was on to something. I wish you hadn't confirmed it so starkly.

:cry:

[uponit7771]

124. If you WIN more than you LOSE then it does, that's the point this is fuckin stupid logic bashers kee

...keep proposing that the perfect or good should overidde adequate!!

[MadHound]

126. No, as many here, and in the MSM have pointed out as well,

People would like one, just one unadulterated big victory from Obama, for the American people. Just one. We're still waiting.

[uponit7771]

136. YOU do NOT get to decide what is big and what is a small victory and neither does our STUIPD M$M!!!!

[MadHound]

139. No, reality gets to decide that,

And in reality, The List™ is full of small victories, not large ones. It is filled with minutia that the public simply doesn't know about. Go out and ask the average person on the street what the NRLB is and they probably can't tell you, much less the policies that Obama has set out in regards to it.

And as much as you scream in all caps, the MSM is the decider for the vast majority of people in this country. And in the fights that the MSM has followed, the public option and HCR, the tax cut fight, the debt ceiling fight, etc. etc., Obama simply hasn't had a clear, unadulterated victory on a big issue.

You may not like it, you can scream all you want about it, but that is reality and you need to start dealing with it.

[uponit7771]

145. M$M and what you define as big or small win = reality?!....... Seriously?!! no really!?

So if you and the M$M decided to say everyone should wear earmuffs then that would make it so?

come on

[MadHound]

147. Do you hear anybody on your block talking about the NLRB or

the Federal Strategic Plan to Prevent and End Homelessness? Seriously, do you? No, you hear them talking about what gets aired, things like HCR, or the debt ceiling, or the war, or tax cuts for the rich. You may not like this, you may think it is unfair, but the fact of the matter is that if it is in the MSM, it is a big win or loss. If it isn't in the MSM, then no, it isn't a big win or loss in the minds of the voting public. You know, the voting public who holds the fate of Obama's bid for reelection in their hands.

Reality, deal with it.

[uponit7771]

149. Yes........................I mean, I talked to a winger the other day who was talking about details

...in some of the debt negotiation and trying to spin the GOP immorality of it.

People DO pay attention,...

I don't know many of my friends who are totally LOST on these subjects...

[MadHound]

154. DEBT CEILING, the same debt ceiling that's been in the MSM

But did you ask them about the Federal Strategic Plan to Prevent and End Homelessness, or the NLRB? My guess, they never heard of it. Not in the news, not in their perception, not in their reality.

[uponit7771]

157. If persception is what counts then Obama is doing just great, he's percieved as trying to work with

...the crazies and losing badly which can set the crazies up for a fall in a little amount of time.

People don't have to know the inside baseball stuff to know the winning score...I'll lose a couple innings to be the top at the end of the game.

[MadHound]

159. If that is the case, then why are Obama's poll numbers down, and sinking further?

People want winners, not just somebody who fought the good fight.

[uponit7771]

164. Obama's RCP numbers are inline with reelection given the circumstances...

link - http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html

Come on, don't believe the hype

LOL...just looked again...gallup and rAssMucis are outliers...wonder why? heh heh...those people are atrip

[MadHound]

280. LOL, "given the circumstances"

And what would those circumstances be? A special caveat for presidents who don't fight, what?

[DireStrike]

163. Well, he's not the final arbiter of which victories are what size

But everyone can have an opinion.

Here's mine: Obama has accomplished no significant wins.

[Armstead]

132. Actually what matters is WHAT you ""win and lose" and the results

[uponit7771]

137. We've won some big fights, ....not losing 700,000 jobs a month is a HUGE win IMHO

[MadHound]

140. But which figure sticks with the American people more?

Not losing 700,000 jobs/month or 25 million people and climbing are out of work.

The latter, every single time. Reality, deal in it.

[uponit7771]

146. You're kidding right? Symantics don't get to define reality....the sky is blue and we're not losing

...700k jobs a month no matter how it's word smithed.

Again, I'm basing my support of Obama and dems off reality, facts and truths....not word smithed craziness

Also, you're question is why should YOU vote for Obama next year not what is the reality presented by the M$M or something word smithed...

You have the FACTS, you do what you want with them

[MadHound]

151. No, people's perceptions define reality,

And most people get their perceptions from the MSM, like it or not. People aren't hearing about 700k jobs not lost, but the 25 million people out of work. People don't hear about the Federal Strategic Plan to Prevent and End Homelessness, but they do realize that Obama just caved on the debt ceiling. This is reality, whether you like it or not.

As far as my question of "Why Should I. . ." goes, if you don't understand rhetorical flourishes, or how to go about creative non-fiction writing, just deal with it, I don't have the time or inclination to teach you right now.

[uponit7771]

155. 83% of liberal democrats have a positive view of Obama...he's held good numbers with the left

...for years and people who are looking at things objectively can see that since the crazies took over congress things have gotten worse.

I don't think people are as out of it as you say they are...

I do understand your rhetorical question...I think it doesn't need to be asked.

[MadHound]

158. Stop repeating that tired old poll number,

It's wrong, simply wrong.
"The Post-ABC poll found that the number of liberal Democrats who strongly support Obama’s record on jobs plunged 22 points from 53 percent last year to 31 percent."
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/more-americans-unhappy-with-obama-on-economy-jobs/2011/07/25/gIQABJ9sZI_story.html>

I also think that you're giving far too much credit to the American public, and if you think my question doesn't need to be asked now, then Obama and the Dems will pay for it in the fall of next year.

[uponit7771]

170. Again, his RCP is just fine amongst dems too...regardless of what the M$M is saying he's not toast

...Bush had worse numbers during economic stability (or the likes of it) and he got reselected.

Either way, I'm going to keep things in perspective...there's not a person in history that I think that can do a better job with the crazies we have currently in congress.

There might be one or two who can do slightly better but that's not worth taking my support away from Obama.

[Lorien]

177. Thank you Pravda. That poll is Bullshit

about 500 liberal Dems on my FB list and TWO support Obama.

[ElboRuum]

295. Wait, so the poll is BS...

But your anecdotal evidence from your Facebook list is NOT?

I can't laugh that hard without pulling something.

[Armstead]

150. Then I would say press harder for liberal policies that helped that

The stimulus helped that. But he has disavowed any further stimulus or public works projects or real carrots and sticks to get businesses hiring again. he also colluded with the GOP to make that financially impossible with this new "Debt Bill."

That's the ;problem many of us have with Obama. It's always one step forward, three steps back.

[uponit7771]

152. I'm goin to do something that actually works, like support progressives for my district seats & get.

...Obama a progressive congress.

There's not a person who knows how the US goverment works that would deny the FACT that if congress was more progressive we wouldn't have to worry about Obama

[Armstead]

162. I don't disagree....But if the Presidency isn;t also important...

then it doesn't matter who is living in the WH. And I know you don't believe that.

Plus Obama could help with that Congressional goal if he bother helped to set a truly liberal and progressive national framework for the elections, and stop stifling progressive efforts like he did when quashing the primary challenger to that loser Blanche Lincoln.

[uponit7771]

167. It is important, I don't believe ANYONE in US history could do as good as Obama with the crazies...

...we have in congress. I'm not going to minimize their impact just to elevate blame on Obama

[FedUp_Queer]

249. Huh?

All of his "accomplishments" happened in 2009 and 2010. Oh wait....THOSE majorities weren't big enough. GD...why do I try to argue with a brick wall?

[October]

193. When have I EVER proposed perfect?

Wow! Talk about flying off the handle.

It's not just the MSM. Progressives are all calling this "compromise" into question. I read a lot.

Nothing fucking stupid about me, btw.

[NMMNG]

211. The List! The List!

Hooray for The List!

[FedUp_Queer]

245. BULLSHIT.

Cute. It took me all of 2 minutes to find a lie on that stupid site.

Case in point:

The site says this:

Signed financial reform law prohibiting banks from engaging in proprietary trading (trading the bank's own money to turn a profit, often in conflict with their customers' interests)
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20008835-503544.html

Cites to an article and everything. Except one thing. That CBS news article is about what came out of conference. This proprietary trading prohibition is also known as the Volcker Rule. Except one thing, the claim on the website is not accurate at all. The CBS news quotation regarding the Volcker Rule is here:

Volcker Rule:

Mostly prohibits banks from proprietary trading and investing in private equity firms or hedge funds. Conferees agreed to weaken this by allowing some stronger banks to invest up to three percent of their capital in private equity groups or hedge funds.

Then there's this article, which puts lie to what it says: http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2010/06/dodd-frank-bills-volcker-rule-a-win-for-big-banks/58747/

Platitude and fancy websites are no substitute for actually reading. Funny...the first cite I check turns out to stand for the exact opposition proposition that website stands for. O(GOP)bama is just another CONservative Republican.

[uponit7771]

125. Do you even understand what a promise meter is?!!?! it LIST the deeds that were done per the promise

...stated

[MadHound]

130. I don't doubt The List™,

But what I keep saying is that it is a list of minutia. What the public at large, those who aren't political junkies like you and I, want is some big victory they can hang their hat on. A public option, raising taxes on the rich, closing Gitmo, you know, something big. Not minutia that only political geeks know about.

[uponit7771]

148. Again, YOU......are defining it as minutia...that's YOUR definition and you don't get to define that

...for everyone at large.

I appreciate not losing 700k jobs a month and not losing major US car manufactures because of what stupid banks have done.

[MadHound]

156. Not, that is the public's perception, a public whose perception is formed almost entirely by the MSM

That's reality, that's what I'm dealing in, I suggest that you deal in it as well.

[Armstead]

128. Not as childish as "Obama is our hero so don't be mean to him"

[treestar]

11. I really can't believe Obama has damaged your career

That sounds like exaggeration.

don't vote for him then, concentrate on the elections for local school board. Why be obsessed with the Presidency when you can deal with something you might have an effect on?

[Bluenorthwest]

23. Why are the OFA types always talking about 'belief' and what

they can and can not 'believe' rather than about facts and reason? The idea of implicating that another is lying because you can not 'believe' is stunningly disconnected from reality. I mean, the President 'believes' that all straight couples are 'sanctified by God' and no gay couple can be. Others 'believe' in Santa Claus.
Always with the faith based verbiage and the accusations toward others. Is this part of the training?

[treestar]

75. I am just saying I do not personally find it convincing

It's quite a claim to make that the President destroyed one's career in an ordinary profession.

[Hawkowl]

232. You are part of the problem

Obama has not supported teachers. He has supported for profit schools.

[lib_wit_it]

261. Who said "destroyed"? The OP said "damaged." Huge difference.

[w4rma]

46. Obama has damaged the careers of EVERY teacher in America.

His education policies are completely horrible. And those school boards are being overridden by the "Charter" Schools he has been backing.

[treestar]

76. Still very exaggerated

I know a lot of teachers and their careers are not destroyed.

[October]

91. Every "unionized" profession has been damaged over the years... one-by-one, dismantled.

Systematically destroying the Middle Class one union at a time.

[callous taoboy]

302. I am switching grade levels this year to get away from the goddamned testing nightmare.

Even though I have 12 years in third grade and am perfectly suited for teaching that grade level, I am moving to second grade.

[MadHound]

48. Really? Do you know anything about my teaching credentials?

Do you know anything about my job search history? Let me fill you in.

I went back to college in 2006 because I saw a desperate need for quality teachers, and teaching is something that I've always wanted to do. After four years in college, I walked out with three degrees, one in Elementary Education, one in Secondary Education, and one in History. I'm a member of Kappa Delta Pi, Phi Alpha Theta and Alpha Chi, all academic honor societies. I graduated Suma Cum Laude. I've got excellent references from my cooperating teacher and principle where I student taught at, along with excellent references from my advisers and supervising professors, not to mention the President of the College. My academic resume is impeccable, my work resume is excellent.

Furthermore, I was in line to get a job at the middle school I student taught at. But budget cut backs, due to the games Obama played with RTTT money meant that the position I was supposedly a shoo-in for got cut. The same is true across the state. I've gone to the statewide teachers' job fair both this year and last, and guess what? Schools aren't hiring teachers, they simply don't have the money. In fact they're laying off teachers by the hundreds. Sure, I could go to Wichita, where they are hiring, or some other state, but I'm older, I own a house here, my wife has a good job here, my life is here, I simply can't move.

Since federal cuts in education have meant layoffs for hundreds and thousands of teachers, my competition is now that much stiffer. A good academic record and impeccable references don't cut it much when you are going up against teachers with years of experience. Normally, since teachers were in high demand, this wasn't the case, and thus rookie teachers generally only had to compete against each other. Not the case anymore. I applied for a local third grade teaching job, and I got to see how many other teachers I was competing against, a stack of applications that was over eight inches thick, in a rural school district. All because federal funding, state funding and local funding has been cut.

Is Obama responsible for all of this, no. But his education and economic policy is indeed throwing teachers out work, and worse destroying our public education system.

[proud2BlibKansan]

60. Actually schools ARE hiring. They're hiring TFA interns.

:)

[MadHound]

64. I know, and it's killing me,

Sometimes I think I made a mistake going back to college in order to teach. But that's what I want to do, a shame I can't do it.

[treestar]

77. Prove his policies put the teachers out of work

That's what you'd need to do.

Schools are local. Well there are some federal laws. I now people don't like the testing and stuff but that was from NCLB.

Bush may have destroyed your career first (barring the idea that a president goes around trying to wreck teachers).

No President tries to destroy teacher's careers. They always have good intentions, even if you disagree with the fallout. Even Republicans.

[MadHound]

88. One point then,

Last year, Obama withheld federal education stimulus funding back in April, May, June and July, the time of year when hiring and firing decisions are made for teachers, when contracts are signed. Without this funding, at this time, schools had to make personell decisions based on the money they had, which meant laying teachers off, not hiring new teachers.

Why did Obama do this? Because he wanted to force states to apply for his RTTT program, a program in which a state is given money for education in exchange for opening their state up to more testing, merit pay for teachers, and ultimately the takeover by charter and other such privatized schools. Of course, states desperate for money flocked to the program, but only a handful fully sold their soul in order to qualify(thankfully mine wasn't one of them).

Only after he played this game all summer, only after thousands of teachers were laid off due to his withholding stimulus money, only after playing this game with RTTT did Obama finally release the federal stimulus funds for education. In September, after it was too late to rehire teachers. And thus many states took that stimulus money, and instead of banking it for this year, they were forced to spend it on other areas of need as our economy continued to decline.

And yes, that is only one way that Obama is helping to destroy public education in this country. I suggest you check out the Education Forum for what else is going on.

[Robb]

210. Not so. Several large districts around the country had a "teacher hiring surge" in September.

Detroit was one. Denver another. Google around. Anecdotally I know of two teachers who successfully changed districts (to be closer to home) as a result.

I'll see if I can pull up a story from last year.

[callous taoboy]

303. I see you are in discussion with one of my many "ignored."

Many of these folks that shit on educators are trolls, pure and simple. I admire the fight in you and good luck with your school year.

[proud2BlibKansan]

59. His education policies have damaged teachers

And our students. That's the worse part. We've lost a generation of kids under NCLB and until we repair the damage, we'll keep on losing more.

Obama put NCLB on steroids. I don't know any teachers who support him anymore.

[treestar]

80. Teachers in general support Democrats

Every teacher I know is a Democrat.

Anyone who can exaggerate "we've lost a generation of kids" can exaggerate about teachers supporting Democrats. The NEA will support the Democratic candidate as usual.

NCLB is unpopular with teachers, and Bush is the one who signed that. It is still law so any subsequent administration must enforce it. People who voted for Obama thinking he could decide not to enforce certain laws are misguided.

[MadHound]

92. You're right, in general

But more and more teachers are becoming desperately disappointed with this administration and its policies. How it toys with education funds, the RTTT program(NCLB on steroids), how it cheers on schools that lay off their entire teaching staff, etc. etc.

The vast majority of teachers that I know are all liberals and Democrats, yet they are disgusted with what this administration is doing to public education. Which means that while they won't vote for a 'Pug, they probably will stay home.

[proud2BlibKansan]

101. Once again. We've lost a generation of kids

and I don't know any teachers who support Obama.

And yes, almost every teacher I know is a Democrat. Some will vote for Obama over Romney or whoever else the GOP nominates. But many will not. I don't know any who are willing to work on his campaign.

[LWolf]

85. If you can't believe it, then you must not be a teacher,

or know any teachers very well.

[MessiahRp]

224. Corporate Attorney, probably doing very well for the clients that are raking it under Obama

has the audacity to question whether a public school teacher, under attack from Obama, Duncan, Oprah & the Fatcats and the Republicans' destroy public schools and unions and move everything to charter schools campaign, is hurting? Seriously you have a lot of nerve.

Rp

[Pacifist Patriot]

14. Thank you. This is what I have a hard time getting people to understand.

When I cast my vote for Obama I felt like I was voting FOR someone rather than just against McCain-Palin because they would have been worse. This time I feel like I will be voting against the Republican nominee rather than for a candidate I am excited about. I'll still vote against the Republicans, I'm not going to sit it out. But I sure as hell don't relish the feeling. Honestly, at this point I feel like the choice is between rabid conservative extremism and thinly disguised corporatism. Not much of a choice at all.

[Courtesy Flush]

118. agreed

The way the GOP has behaved the last few years is absolutely horrifying. It's unthinkable not to vote against them. No matter who the Democrats have on the ticket, I have to vote for them, because things will get even worse if we don't.

[Ozymanithrax]

15. Even the California Democratic party is asking that questions..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=4946549&mesg_id=4946549

And I can't think of a single positive answer. President Obama(R) is running his administraiton in accordance with his political and personal ideals. That is not likely to change.

[TreasonousBastard]

21. That's just the Progressive Caucus, and the real Democratic Party told them to shit in their hats.

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MilesColtrane]

16. Because the alternative would be worse.

Believe that, or not.

[MadHound]

22. Oh, I understand that,

But what I'm talking about here is getting people out to vote. Simply stating the negative, that the alternative is worse, using fear to motivate people, won't get people out to the voting booth. Instead, more apathy will set in, and given that Obama's '08 victory was won on the back of massive voter turnout, then he will lose.

People want something to vote for that's what gets them out to the polls. If they don't have something to vote for then a lot of them stay home.

[MilesColtrane]

27. Well, rattling off your list of his perceived failures will certainly fire up the voters!

That's quite a disingenuous OP you've got there.

[MadHound]

35. First of all, if you think that any list I put out there on a political chat board

Is going to have any effect on the outcome of the election, well, that's pretty damn delusional. We reach what, maybe a half million people all told, and maybe half that number in a week. Far less that one percent of the vote. We're not the big, all powerful mouthpiece that you think.

Second of all, I put that list up there as an example of what people, what liberals, what Obama's base is thinking and feeling. You don't like that, talk to Obama, he created it originially.

[MilesColtrane]

42. OK, Chief.

Stay concerned about that reelection!

:hi:

[LondonReign2]

34. I'm starting to think we need that "worse alternative"

Any of the current Republicans would be far worse, without a doubt, yet I am starting to think that is exactly what this country needs to shake itself out of this stupor.

With Obama, we can continue the steady slide to the right and the cementing of Corporatism. With the right wing, the plunge would be so enormous that maybe, just maybe, it would cause Americans to wake up. Undoutably the damage would be immense, but it might be the only thing that would stop us from the ultimate depths, and enrage the people enough to have an American Spring where we overturn corporate personhood and the right of corporations to buy our politicians.

The slow steady frog-boil of Obama, or the sharp jerk of the chain under the Republicans.

Back in 1996, my friend informed me he was voting for Perot because both the Republicans and Democrats represented the same thing. Of course I strenously argued that wasn't so...and it wasn't under Cliton and wouldn't have been under Gore. But under Obama? Yeah, pretty much the same thing, only the pace of decay is different.

[MilesColtrane]

41. Burn the village to save it?

No thanks.

There's never any guarantee about who will be in control of rebuilding from the ashes.

[HughBeaumont]

54. Usually, it's a totalitarian that makes Bewsh II look like Mother Teresa.

This same logic is what Conservaturds use: "Maybe what this country needs is another and more serious terrorist attack to get the non-believers out of their complacency!" Ecccch.

America's had enough hardship without the need to introduce more. If we're not aware of who the real enemy is by now (hint: they're in corporate boardrooms), then it's not my fault this country's being willfully stupid.

[Armstead]

138. Is that not what is already being done? Just more slowly and from within.

Giving the GOP and teabaggers a fundamental straightjacket in government initiatives for years to come in the recent Debt Ransom Bill is burining the village to "save" it.

So was killing a public option and any chance at universal public health insurance, while imposing a corporate mandate to force people to buy overpriced private insurance.

So is advocating "tough choices" in programs for the poor and middle class, while allowing two useless, expensive wars to continue and zillionaires to go scott-free.

Etc.

[MilesColtrane]

207. I do not agree.

[Ganja Ninja]

65. I agree. It might be the quickest way to bring this to a head.

The best way to counter the GOP's snake oil is for the country to get big nasty sickening taste they won't forget. The brush with disaster we had known as the Bush administration left town just as bitter medicine of consequences was taking hold. If it had happened 3 years earlier America would have gotten a much stronger dose. The election turnaround would have been more through and long lasting. The Democrats might have had 4 or even more years of unchallenged power.

[harun]

194. Agree. Everyone I know who voted for Obama won't be. He just won't

be winning that next election. It will be Romney or Bachman.

I don't want that to happen but that's the way the wind is blowing.

[TransitJohn]

18. Feel free to vote your conscience.

Especially if you live in a state which rarely goes Dem. :hi:

[MrDiaz]

19. because

he is simply playing a game of 45 - dimensional chess.

[TreasonousBastard]

20. I am getting so fucking sick of these lists of Obama's "failures"...

No, he's not perfect, and he sure isn't Moses delivering us into the Promised Land of Progressive Perfection. A good argument could be made that he's much better at campaigning than governing. (An argument made of Clinton, btw)

But. for one thing, "the people" don't all think the way you or I do, and Congress has been on an alien planet for years.

It was Congress that stopped the Gitmo closing, Congress that won't change the drug laws, Congress that forced changes to the healthcare law, Congress that fucked up the debt limit vote. Congress, btw, that was changed last year by an electorate that proved to be anything but "progressive". Hatred and feared anything even vaguely "liberal."

In the history of this country, there are only two presidents who came close to this liberal ideal being espoused, and the people now trashing Obama would undoubtedly trash them for not meeting their own mythical standards.

You may not have noticed this, but being President isn't being a dictator and happens to be a damn difficult job with pressures and demands coming from all sides, several of which hate his guts and have the primary goal of seeing him fail.

You are stuck with an imperfect President in your eyes, perhaps a terrible one because he doesn't meet your standards, but you're still stuck with him until Moses shows up. Deal with it because Moses ain't coming any time soon.

And start focusing your anger and disappointment on the real enemies.

[woo me with science]

28. I'm not sick of the lists.

I'm sick of the policies, which go against everything Democrats have traditionally stood for.

And Third Way Democrats who are infiltrating the Democratic Party to push these sorts of policies ARE the enemy, just as much as any Republican who pushes them.

[TreasonousBastard]

43. I grew up in a city run by Tammany Hall and watched southern Democrats...

use firehoses, dogs, and the occasional lynching to preserve their traditional values. You could argue whether it was a good thing or a bad thing that LBJ turned them all into Republicans.

Meanwhile, Eisenhower was integrating the schools, arguing for peace, and building interstate highways and the space program. Later on Nixon, of all people, gave us a voting rights act and the EPA.

So, this "values" thing is bullshit. Democrats do tend to lean left while Republicans tend to lean right, but "traditions"? Please...

At any rate, the population that elects these people doesn't seem to share these traditional values we say we hold so dear. Elected officials respond to two things-- votes and money. They do NOT respond to the whinings of nonconstituents unless a check is attached.

[MadHound]

32. And watch as people stay home in droves.

People aren't wanting a miracle, but they do expect something major. A public option, tax cuts for the rich cut out, jobs, that would be the big one.

But this administration hasn't delivered that big one. All they have delivered is compromise and bad deals.

That's not going to get people out to the polls, no matter how much you rant and rage. The simple fact of the matter is that people want to vote for something. If they don't get it, and if all that is motivating them is to vote against something, then apathy takes over and they stay home.

You may blame this all on Congress, but Obama is the front man, you know, the buck stops here. And he is the one who will get the credit, or derision, from any such actions. It may not be fair, but it is reality. Screaming that it is all Congress' fault ain't going to get you votes.

And if you look at the polls coming out, yes, the people are starting to respond to Obama's failures. Poll after poll sees his ratings go down, no matter the demographic, his numbers are down. People aren't looking for perfection, but at the end of the day they are looking for at least one major, unadulterated accomplishment that they can hang their hat on in the voting booth. So far, this administration hasn't provided them with one.

You may not like that, you can rant and rage against that, but it is reality.

[TreasonousBastard]

51. Of course-- the President always gets the blame, but...

that's from the uneducated masses. Are you joining them or are you helping to clean up the mess?

"It's the economy, stupid" will work for them next year, and they killed the stimulus bill and new spending, even old spending, to make sure it's an issue next year. One scumbag Florida congresscritter put the FAA out of business working for Delta instead of the nation, or even his own district. But, hey, let's jump on Obama.

Every state and local budget is being slashed, each one doing its bit to destroy our economy. We should thank Greece, Ireland, and Spain for being so fucked up that the Euro hasn't become the world's reserve currency and we aren't buying oil in Petroeuros.

We now have laws trying to regulate banks and investment firms, but are they being enforced? They were passed when Pelosi was in charge, but now every trick in the book is being played to stop enforcement. And it's not the Administration stopping it.

But, go ahead and piss on the White House. You have that right even when you're dead wrong

[MadHound]

62. Not pissing on the White House, trying to give it a wake up call,

Trying to give Obama's supporters around here a wake up call. You said yourself that this sort of thinking will work on the uneducated masses, well guess what, this country is made up of uneducated masses, and what those masses are looking for is something to hang their hat on, actual accomplishments. Instead of defending Obama's defeats, we all need to urge the White House to come up with one unadulterated victory to inspire those masses.

Otherwise he will go down to defeat, that is political reality.

[LondonReign2]

40. Sure, you can blame Congress

But what we see is a President who says one thing (public option, marching with workers, revenue raisers, etc) but actually starts every negotiation giving the Republicans 90% of what they want and moving right from there.

He NEVER effectively uses the bully pulpit, nor really stand up for the things he claims to support initially. Hell, he started negotiations TO THE RIGHT of what polls showed Republican voters wanted!

[TreasonousBastard]

57. You're dead wrong about "starting" to the right...

he "started" with his proposals and immediately walked into a brick wall when there was solid opposition to damn near anything he wanted. Even some acceptable past Republican proposals were stopped just because he agreed with them.

Look at his record with Pelosi running the House compared to Boner's intransigence.

EVERY President has trouble getting things through an opposition Congress-- even Reagan couldn't get half of his bullshit past Tip O'Neill.

[Dawgs]

115. Every proposal he mentioned he gave up on almost immediately.

The Republicans didn't budge on any of theirs until the very end.

The final result was them getting almost everything they wanted and Democrats getting nothing.

Let me guess, it was the Congress's fault.

[LondonReign2]

188. Proclaiming what he wanted and immediately walking back

Sure, he claimed he wanted a clean bill -- and next thing you know his "balanced" proposal is for $4T, only 13% of which is revenue enhancements. And hey, he ended up only giving them 98% of what they wanted.

Just like he claimed he'd end the Bush tax cuts, the wars, etc etc.

The brickwall excuse is just that -- an excuse. The problem is when faced with a brickwall, Obama has collapsed every time. He had the tools to go around the brick wall and chose, instead, to back down while offering up social security and medicare.

[semillama]

84. Good response.

Although I do agree with the general point that Obama does need to be more out there about pushing forward, and not just pushing back against the Republicans. He needs to be visited by the ghost of Teddy Roosevelt and given a good pep talk. Obama has proven he can fire people up, and he needs to get back to that style of communication.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

208. This.

:thumbsup:

[PVnRT]

284. Once again, criticizing = "trashing"

Same shit, different day

[Iggo]

25. He'll be the Democratic candidate for President of the United States. (n/t)

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

26. Obama is a Centrist pol who believes the goal is winning elections.

And, once office is won, it's only purpose is to use it to win again. Kinda like buying a car, putting it on blocks in the garage, and preserving it as a trade-in for a new car.

"Were parties here divided merely by a greediness for office,...to take a part with either would be unworthy of a reasonable or moral man." Thomas Jefferson to William Branch Giles, 1795.

[Richardo]

312. What a stunning insight.

Politicians like to win elections. Let me write that down.

[woo me with science]

30. Superlative post.

The policies are those of both Republicans AND Third Way Democrats who have infiltrated the Democratic Party and are trying to change its very soul.

We cannot allow them to do this.

[gateley]

31. My sympathies lie with the teachers, but I fear far worse if

a Republican were to take office. Not a rousing endorsement, but a pragmatic observation. :shrug:

[alc]

33. hopefully they'll have a better slogan by next year

But for now "The alternative is worse" will have to do.

If you're in a blue state that's probably all you'll get. It's about electoral votes, so if you're in PA or FL or another battleground state you may get more. Obama needs 50%+ in those states. Look at voter composition in those states (dem,rep,indy) and which groups are already locked up and which he needs to win over. That will show what policies will be like over the next year. Recent reports that the base is solidly behind Obama are probably bad, not good for liberals. It means he can focus on independents and winning over some republican votes.

[Whisp]

36. you can do what you like. vote for who you want.

'''As we've seen, the enthusiasm for Obama is decreasing across the board.'''

That is true but has no connection to the rest of the Dem voting public.

Obama is still in pretty good shape with democrats generally. Too bad you are letting this board, with the couple/few hundred anti-Obama people make it sound otherwise.

[MadHound]

39. When I say "across the board" I am using a common phraseology that means

Across the entire spectrum. Not here, but out in the real world. And if you don't believe me that Obama is losing support across the board, go check out his latest poll numbers, they're sinking fast.

[Whisp]

45. more reason then to help him out, like he asked of us during the campaign

he can't do this alone he said.

thats how I look at it, but others have different views obviously.

If a friend or family member, who I have commited loyalty to, gets into a bit of a pickle along the way on the road of life, I don't ditch him or her because things aren't perfect, that's when they need me the most.

We have to carry each other.

And so far there is nothing remotely closely so horrific that Obama has said or done that would make me drop him. Of course there has been a lot of talk about what a horrible human being he is, but I dismiss that as RW bullshit, as it should be.

[MadHound]

63. Yeah, but if that friend gets into that pickle because of their own fuckup,

Do you pull that friend aside and say "Hey, dude, you're fucking up, this is how you're fucking up, this is what you can do to stop fucking up?" A friendly reality check if you will.

That's what this post is.

[Whisp]

78. okay, then I misunderstood. maybe.

sure I would talk to him, but I wouldn't call him awful names and scream at him in Caps and I wouldn't just assume and expect he would take all my advice to the letter.

When I give advice to anyone I am hoping I give a view they never thought of before or is helpful in some way and then they freely decide how to mix it in with their ideas.

[MadHound]

90. I'm not screaming at him in all caps, or calling him bad names.

But thanks for getting my point, maybe:)

[Whisp]

166. I didn't mean you and this post. I meant the general screaming here. nt/

[MilesColtrane]

96. So, you don't believe your OP can influence voters on this board, but...

you believe it can make Obama "shape up"?

Ummkay

[MadHound]

104. No, actually I believe that my post can make Obama's die hard supporters here "shape up"

That's more than anything why I put out this post. Time and again over the past ten years, I keep seeing Democratic supporters simply say that we should support Candidate X because the alternative is worse. Sorry, but if you're dealing with the real world(and I hope that many of us are active in the real political world) you have to give voters reasons to vote for a candidate. If all you give them is "the alternative is much, much worse", as we see done around here, then all you're going to get is a bunch of people staying home.

[Armstead]

175. Good luck with that one...

as you can see by the responses

[MilesColtrane]

178. Sounds like no amount of recalling the positive aspects of this administration...

would have any effect whatsoever on you, or those who think like you.

In fact, I know it won't because I've seen people try to persuade you that there ARE positives.

So, you won't mind if I, or the other supporters, take a rain check on "shaping up".

[eilen]

305. Madhound, you have every right to post a topic for

discussion on this message board and it doesn't have to fit in anyone's "purity of purpose" meter. You don't have to justify your OP. If he doesn't care for it, he can click away and read some campaign propaganda and feel all right with the world again.

[merbex]

38. You know what I wish? I wish you could say this to his face at some

'Town Hall' he might have in the future.

I want to see his response to your valid critique.

I would put money on it: he would deride you as 'left of the left' or some variation thereof

[Armstead]

141. he would give an extremely reasonable answer...And keep doing the same stuff

[LanternWaste]

44. Anytime I feel apathetic about a situation...

Anytime I feel apathetic about a situation, I tend realize before long that the apathy is mine alone, and that I have a choice of either embracing it or denying it-- regardless of what both the cheerleaders and the Righteous Opposition may tell me.

[dtexdem]

47. We all have our breaking points, and must make our decisions based on it.

Although I keep thinking (and saying) that Obama has finally crossed the line and lost my vote, I'm still undecided. That's because although Obama is turning into a RW ideologue in Dem's clothing, his likely opponent in 2012 will be really, really batshit crazy. And even were his upcoming opponent not a real loon, she or he would still be a lower life form: a Repuke.

[ChoppinBroccoli]

49. Here We Go Again

Lest I be accused of not understanding the point of your post, rest assured, I do. I even sympathize. But allow me to answer your question in the following way.

I have a gun pointed at you. If you vote one way, I'll shoot you in the foot. If you vote the other way, I'll shoot you in the head. Make your choice.

See, it's all well and good that you shouldn't HAVE to choose the lesser of two evils, but I shouldn't HAVE to choose between working and starving. You make the choice between two distasteful options EVERY DAY. Yes, it would be nice if we didn't have to. But this is the hand we've been dealt. You have the CHOICE between accepting reality and milking it for whatever good is there, and refusing to do ANYTHING until your own little Utopia is achieved. Because after all, if it can't be IDEAL for YOU, it should be as bad as humanly possible for EVERYONE, right?

Believe me, I understand your point. You're complaining that you shouldn't HAVE to choose between eating broccoli or peas. But you've completely misunderstood the situation. You're ACTUALLY choosing between eating broccoli and poison. And if you refuse to pick one, guess which one you'll get.

But really, at this point, you've heard all this before, and I suspect you understand it full well. Which makes me wonder why you would even BOTHER to make a post like this. If you're willing to write this post, you've already got your mind made up and nothing anyone says is going to sway you. So why bother? Trying to sway people over to your way of thinking? Or do you just desperately need the attention? So now I guess WE get to make a choice: are you a right-wing troll or just a shameless attention-whore? Because I really don't see a third option.

[MadHound]

58. Actually, despite your claims contrariwise, you did indeed miss my point.

Let me boil it down a bit for you.

If the President doesn't give Dems, liberals, his constituents, his base a solid reason to vote for him, if the only reason given is because the alternative is worse, people will stay home in droves.

We have seen this phenomenon time and again, Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Kerry. A large part of their campaign strategy was simply "Hey, the alternative is worse." And people stayed home in droves.

If the people don't have something solid to vote for, a candidate, only reasons to vote against that candidates opponent, the people throw up their hands, say "fuck it all" and stay home in large numbers.

That is political reality, a political reality that we're seeing played out right now as Obama's numbers continue to sink. A political reality that Obama needs to address, and quickly, while he still has time. Otherwise he won't get the large turnout he needs to win, and thus will go down to defeat.

That is the point I'm trying to make. Not about my personal feelings, but about the greater political reality that Obama faces in his bid for reelection.

[badhair77]

70. reality-based point

[treestar]

83. Great post!

Good analogy. Life is just not utopia. We all have to make choices.

[Armstead]

144. This is PRECISELY THE TIME for this

Obama just got through a major shellacking at the hands of the GOP.

The 2012 campaign is about to start for real. (uhg)

Team Obama is looking at what they have to do to win.

This is exactly the time to discuss where he has failed, and offer suggestions of what he could do avoid getting his butt kicked (and all Democrats) next year.

[Control-Z]

217. I'm going with:

"Trying to sway people over to your way of thinking."

[LynneSin]

50. You give a very solid reason as to why we need a primary. But...

given the choice between Obama and any of these republican whack jobs running for office, I'll gladly vote for Obama and even campaign to help get him re-elected.

[NoodleyAppendage]

52. You shouldn't. Voting for Obama is like excusing the abuser.

At this point the Democratic voters should be looking for viable alternatives. To do otherwise is like a battered woman excusing the actions of her abusive, asshile husband.

[Lorien]

173. That's what it feels like . " If we're just supportive and extra nice maybe he won't hit

us again." It doesn't work that way. You have to stand up to bullies.

[BigBearJohn]

223. Darned right. Good point!

[Name removed]

53. Deleted message

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

[MilesColtrane]

87. A clown would make a fine representative for your take on the election process.

[Doctor_J]

55. I will of course vote for him, but the "hope" is completely gone

Basically people in my age group (50's) are now voting to try to keep worse from coming to worst before we shuffle off. I have serious doubts that he's going to win. His poll numbers are plummeting and the reasons are obvious, and they're not going to change.

Before this, I never understood the "don't waste your vote" people. Now I do. I heard Nader on Hartmann in the summer of 2008, saying "Obama will win comfortably, but if you're expecting change, you're going to be sorely disappointed." He was very prescient.

[Coyote_Bandit]

56. Focus your time effort and resources

on electing real progressives at your state and local level who you believe in. Perhaps they will become your champion

IMHO, there is no reason to invest in supporting a candidate that does not serve to advance and protect one's needs and interests. The only difference between a Dem that does not serve to advance and protect one's needs and interests and a Puke that does likewise is one of degree. You protect yourself by voting against the worst candidate - and for the least bad candidate. But that is hardly a reason to proactively support the least bad candidate.

[L0oniX]

67. I will not vote for a repuke ...of any sort.

[MadHound]

71. Neither will I, and yes, I will vote next year,

But this isn't about you or me, this is about the broader political reality, namely that if Obama doesn't given people a reason to vote for him and his policies, only reasons to not vote for his opponent, he is going to lose because people will simply be apathetic and stay home.

[L0oniX]

72. Some people consider Obama to be a repuke ...just say'n.

[hay rick]

214. Including more than a few who voted for him in 2008.

[hay rick]

215. Including more than a few who voted for him in 2008.

[jeff47]

187. Neither will I, but it's getting really hard to not leave the "President" line blank. (nt)

[LoZoccolo]

73. Then what are you going to do about it, and how will that get you what you want?

Let's see a straight line from the action you will take instead of voting for Obama, to getting all of the things you've listed that you want in this OP. Otherwise, I don't think you've taken enough responsibility in developing your ideas to be able to ask anyone to answer your question. There is already a big list of Obama's accomplishments, and I see no reason that there shouldn't be more by 2016. That's my reason. Let's see your reason for not doing so; a real reason involving an explanation of cause and effect, not just an elucidation of your emotions.

[MadHound]

81. And once again, what I'm saying, the point I'm making, does a double back flip right over your head.

Where did I say that I'm not voting for Obama? Oh, yeah, that's right, despite your knee jerking, I didn't. The question I'm asking is why should I vote for Obama, given his record. A record that doesn't just effect me, but millions of others across this country. I'm looking for a reason to vote for Obama, not simply reasons to vote against Obama's opponent. Get it?

I ask this question because of one single, simple reality. If people don't have a reason to vote for]/b] a candidate, only reasons to vote against that candidates opponent, then voters stay home. We've seen that time and again throughout the years and decades, it is a political reality.

As far as The List™, as I told another poster upthread, the average voter doesn't know about, or care about The List™. All they see or care about are what's in the headlines, and what has been in the headlines for the past couple of years isn't inspiring to the average voter, a suck economy, no jobs, tax cuts for the rich, no public option, mandated monopoly for the insurance industry, and now SS and Medicare being threatened.

A perfect recipe for people to stay home next fall. Wake up and smell the political reality.

[LoZoccolo]

93. Why don't you help spread the list? n/t

[MadHound]

95. Again, The List™ doesn't mean a damn thing to the vast majority of voters

Big, grand things are what matters, and for this administration, those big grand things are very scarce on the ground.

[LoZoccolo]

98. Maybe that's because, as you say, they don't know about it. n/t

[MadHound]

105. No, it means that the list is full of such political minutia,

That the real voter is simply turned off. You know that as well as I do, or at least I hope you would.

[uponit7771]

127. Minutial TO WHO?!?!?!? YOU??!!! You don't define what is little or small "promises"

[MadHound]

143. No, minutia to the general public,

After all, how many people do you think have heard about the NLRB or the Federal Strategic Plan to Prevent and End Homelessness? Walk down your block, ask everybody you meet about these two. I doubt you will get one positive response. That's who gets to decide what is minutia, the public at large.

[eilen]

311. After all, most people on the street

see the news about unions losing benefits and pensions and homeless people on the street.

There is a critical need for women's homeless shelters in most cities. There are foreclosures happening on their blocks. Businesses are still laying off, it is hard to find a job that pays as much as the last one.

The pain at the pump and at the grocery store smarts every day. Many are cutting things to the point that they never thought they would end up this way, even with jobs --keeping up with bills is harder than ever. There is hardly anyone going anywhere for vacation this year--even the doctor's wife I work with-- they are staying home-- made one trip to Baltimore to visit an adult child but no Italy.

Soldiers are still coming home in body bags.

There are some fancy words and titles of legislation on that list but they are not being felt by the majority of people.

[LoZoccolo]

94. Also, I address you, because you made yourself the topic in asking "Why should I...". n/t

[MadHound]

97. That nice, but "Why should I" doesn't equate to "I won't"

Please, a basic understanding of both English and Rhetoric would be helpful. Perhaps a bit of Logic as well.

[LWolf]

82. Well said.

I couldn't have said it better.

[ProSense]

100. Well,

compare the Republican front runner to President Obama.

Progress.

[MadHound]

107. Again, thanks for demonstrating my point

You are giving people reasons to vote against the 'Pug, not a reason to vote for the President.

[ProSense]

121. Sure

"You are giving people reasons to vote against the 'Pug, not a reason to vote for the President."

...if you ignore "progress," which was also in my response.

[MadHound]

133. No, I'm not ignoring that,

However the simple fact of the matter is that Obama's accomplishments are just that, lower case accomplishments that usually only political geeks know about. The public at large wants ACCOMPLISHMENTS, or at least one, something they can hang their hat on. You know, hey, Obama got us the public option, or Obama increased taxes on the rich, or increased jobs. Big ticket, high visibility items.

Obama has yet to have one of those, and he needs one desperately.

[Snoutport]

102. As for the gay issues:

Change is slow. Clinton could only manage Don't Ask Don't Tell. Obama has managed to get several huge changes through the system. DADT will be gone soon. DOMA is a tougher nut to crack but he has asked for change.

THere are changes being made, though slow, but so far Obama is the best president ever in the area of gay rights.

I'm a teacher too though...I wish he would do something to save teachers.

[uppityperson]

103. How do people get inspired to vote? People vote emotionally, not rationally or logically.

People act based on their emotions, good evidence here in this thread.

I don't know how to get people inspired to vote. Especially with MSM pushing bullshit like it does. People were inspired last pres election but have heard and seen little positive movement. Some of the negativity is unrealistic expectations. politics is dirty business and my hope in voting for Obama was to slow down the awfulness a little. Not to make things better but to slow down the bad stuff.

I understand your point and will be watching to see what happens to inspire people.

[Armstead]

109. messaging for liberalism can do that.....But Obama and the ConservaDem establishment choose not to

Obama is great at inspiring ands firing people up in a liberal direction.

But he chooses not to take that leap that would really fire people up in a liberal direction. Instead he eithr ignores issues (like the whole union thing) or he backtracks to GOP positions with code words like "bipartisan" and "compromise."

And more important, he does this in his actions.

Someone with his skills who is actually a liberal could fire up the "swing voters" and even turn many conservatives.

[uppityperson]

112. Like whom? Serious question.

[Armstead]

122. Several answers -- First one is Obama if he ever shakes off his centrist coma

I am referring to the actual message and positions in this list, although the individuals may lack in the "star power" factor for the Presidency

Bernie Sanders is a great frole model. I know he isn't viable because he is an independent who calls himself a socialist. But in addition to telling the unvarnished truth and offering progressive solutions, Bernie is a great politician in the nuts-and-bolts of it. He is so popular in Vermont the GOP basically gave up running seriously against him. His message is also tailored in a way that can appeal to blue collar voters as well as non-brainwashed local chamber of commerce types. That's because it is clear he is fighting for their interests.

Paul Wellstone, except he's dead.

Among the current Democrats, I see many who have the right message. Sherrod Brown, Tom Harkin, Marci Kaptur, Jan Schiakowsky, Pete deFazio, among others.

The Basic positions of Dennis Kucinich, which are traditional Democratic liberalism at base, although he is to much of a loose cannon and goes into la-la land sometimes and is obviously not personally suited to the presidency.

Just a few examples. If those kinds of messages -- and committment to liberal goals -- were carried by someone with the charisma of Obaama or Clinton, I believe democrats cuold wipe the floor with the GOP for years to come.

[DireStrike]

168. Luckily for Obama supporters, I believe he has that well in hand.

The man is a consummate campaigner. It's too soon to bother wasting money to inspire the public now. He'll start next year, and everyone that needs to will be marching in lock-step by November. The Republicans are so weak that he doesn't even have to do a spectacular job.

[tammywammy]

106. SCOTUS n/t

[ProgressiveEconomist]

190. Bingo! We have a winner here.

[NMDemDist2]

222. +1 !!! n/t

[rosesaylavee]

277. +1000

If for nothing else.

[Proles]

110. The general consensus is because you have no alternative.

Not a very promising prospect eh?

[Courtesy Flush]

113. Why? Because we're back to the old lesser-of-two-evils days.

and it felt so good to actually vote for someone I WANTED to have as president. :puke:

[hifiguy]

189. Yep. 2008 was the first time I ever voted for POTUS

when I felt the choice was not the lesser of two evils. And I first voted for POTUS in 1976 (I'd been a Frank Church/Jerry Brown supporter in the primaries that year). Boy was I a sucker.

[Armstead]

114. +1000 -- The key point is the last graphs about creating apathy

Obama and the lack of clarity in the Democratic party generates "WTF They're All The same" apathy among many voters. especially thise "swing" voters. Given no clear alternative the GOP, many won't bother to vote or care about the results of the election.

Or they'll choose whatever candidates "looks good" and is better at bamboozling them. Which usually end up being Republicans.

[LatteLibertine]

119. I'm starting to think

perhaps we should fill our government with Republicans from top to bottom because that might force the revolt we need from the middle class and poor.

I don't see this system changing from within while the corporations rule us through our government. They've control of most all our politicians.

[RightNoMore]

161. This tread being talked about at AR15.com

The whack job gun-nuts and RonBots over at ar15.com are tracking this thread.

http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/1214614_Many_unhappy_people_at_DU__number_one_topic_today_.html

They are so filled with hate, that it is sad.

[MadHound]

165. Oh well, just wave "hi" and move on

:hi:

Oh, and to the folks over there, remember, your discourse is also in the public domain as well. And frankly, you folks are putting on quite a show of Teh Stupid.

And I don't understand why you folks don't hot link, what, afraid of getting the dreaded liberal cooties or something?

[JoePhilly]

169. Here is why ... and I'll work from one of your main quotes ...

"Instead of being the Great Compromiser who can't negotiate his way out of a wet paper bag, Obama is going to have to become a fighter."

Here is what I think the crux of the issue is. The GOP has one goal. And that goal is to keep the government from doing anything. If they could, they'd rip up the Constitution, and rewrite it so that the government can't do a damn thing.

But they can't do that ... so their alternative is to simply block, obstruct, and manufacture Forrest fires. They block appointments ... the go on vacation forcing the FAA to layoff workers ...

They do what ever they can to bring the government to a stop, and failing that, they knee-cap it when-ever and where-ever they can.

They would LOVE Obama to start proposing big programs, especially now that they have the House. They can have a big fight that Obama can't win (the votes simply don't exist), and when Obama can't get his "big thing" done, the GOP will declare victory, and parts of the left will call Obama "weak".

As an example. The GOP wanted ZERO stimulus. Obama wanted 1 Trillion. He got 800 Billion. The right wing hates that he won that battle ... does the left cheer the fact that he got ~80% of his target, no.

And that's a case where he WON. Imagine if he has each of the "bold programs" and fails. You say that would be GOOD. I seriously doubt that is an accurate assessment.

He got more in Stimulus than anyone in history, but that's seen as a failure. Got more for HCR than anyone in decades, but that's seen as a failure. More for financial reform that any in decades, yet its another failure. Getting us out of Iraq on the schedule he ran on ... failure. DADT ending ... nope, too slow, failure.

We can even give the credit for what he is able to get done with a GOP hell bent on stopping all government action.

But you think the American people would prefer total and complete failure, no movement, no progress, but lofty ideals and "bold proposals".

I just don't see how getting nothing done (which is what the GOP's top priority is) helps him. The way I see it, if he failed in these "bold proposals", the same folks who scream that he didn't do enough when he didn't get everything we want when we wanted it ... they would be screaming that he didn't get ANYTHING at all.

[JDPriestly]

244. Too much of the stimulus was in tax cuts.

That is because Obama actually believes in the conservative idea that businesses and the wealthy create jobs. His belief is understandable because that is normally true.

But in a serious recession like the one we have now, businesses don't create jobs because there is not enough demand for the products the businesses produce due to the downturn. So, in a serious recession like this one, the government needs to create jobs directly. Obama put some of the stimulus money into direct job creation -- but not nearly enough.

So that is Obama's big problem now. He miscalculated by a huge amount.

[ecstatic]

172. Don't vote for him. I'm sure Bachmann/Perry is the superior choice

:eyes: As far as Obama, what people on this board keep forgetting is that whatever happens next year Obama will be fine. Voting in a way that ensures GOP victory will only hurt you and your family... Obama's family will be just fine.

[Lorien]

176. Insanity: doing the same thing again and again and expecting different results.

If we vote Obama in again it will just be a repeat of what's happening now-only next time he really will have nothing to lose. :-( I'm done with voting for the lesser of evils; we need to elect candidates that WE choose and hold them to a higher standard.

[county worker]

179. Don't vote for him, but at least vote against the repub!

Saying you won't vote for Obama because he screwed you sometimes is like saying to the repub, here I am screw me all the time.

Let's get off this pity pot about Obama. Forget him, vote for him if he is the candidate but also work to win back the House, keep the Senate and work for your local progressive candidates.

All of us have been screwed by Obama. You aren't special. So get off it, it sounds so self serving and childish.

If you don't vote in the presidential election I don't want to see any posts from you about how bad the right has fucked over you.

[MadHound]

219. Did you read past the first couple of paragraphs?

I think the point of my post is eluding you.

[Rosco T.]

192. Because if you don't, you're helping the GOPigs take total control ....

.. with NOTHING to hold them back.

NOTHING.

[proud patriot]

197. 5 words ..The United States Supreme Court

:hi:

[BlueIdaho]

198. What makes you think he will appoint liberal leaning SC justices?

I am not the least bit convinced.

[proud patriot]

201. um because has already appointed 2

:think:

[BlueIdaho]

204. That was then, this is now.

I think the best we can hope for at this point will be republican lite nominations.

[proud patriot]

213. I hope you are wrong

:hug:

[BlueIdaho]

216. Me too!

I would LOVE to be able to apologize to you for my cynicism in a few years!

[proud patriot]

324. I know

:hug: :loveya: :hug:

[FrenchieCat]

200. Don't vote for Obama next year.....

Show us how much you really care about all of the policies and people
you say you care about!

[MadHound]

220. Reach past the first couple of paragraphs,

Try and grasp the point I'm making with the OP. Don't knee jerk.

Big hint, nowhere in the OP did I say I wouldn't vote for Obama. Think about it, don't just react.

[Motown_Johnny]

202. Because you can't vote for him this year

because the alternative is unthinkable




pick one

[pwb]

203. Because he is running against a Republican?.

[MouseFitzgerald]

205. I completely agree

That list could be half as long and it would still be monumentally disappointing. The guy is a pathetic excuse for a democrat and he needs to switch parties and be honest with himself. It pisses me the fuck off that he thinks he can run as a democrat while holding the policy positions he does. Seriously, just become a republican, it would be so much easier for you and you wouldn't be destroying a political party that many care about and would like to see return to its proud populist roots. He is trying to destroy any remnants of what the democratic party used to be and turn it into this pathetic moderately conservative party.

[Fly by night]

206. Don't ask me. I couldn't tell you.

When he doubled down on the drug war, he lost me and every neighbor I know who voted for him in 2008.

Of course, here in Tennessee, it doesn't matter anyway. Our votes are counted by unverifiable voting machines that have a completely white Republican slate being elected in Memphis, the blackest and bluest city in the mid-South. So it's unlikely my vote will count anyway. (Eric Holder, are you listening? Unlikely.)

[XemaSab]

209. You forgot the environment

and the fact that the BP oil spill was a brass ring for Obama to aggressively push renewables.

Did he do this? No, no he did not.

[swilton]

221. The Democratic Party must now focus its campaign

on negativity - demonizing the GOP - to avoid discussing the poor performance of this administration and the lackluster leadership in the House and Senate.

[TomCADem]

225. He Is The Most Progressive President In Decades. He Has The Best Chance To Win.

The fact that you somehow ignore the stimulus, the bailout of the auto industry, START II, Health Care Reform, Financial Reform, a liberal NLRB, the winding down of the Iraq War is telling, the end of DADT, and the refusal to defend DOMA is telling.

This is not a conservative President. This is not a passive President. This is a President who has got things done in a time of adversity.

[MadHound]

227. "Got things done in a time of adversity."

Like the debt ceiling debacle?

Let me go through some of these "accomplishments"for you.

"Most liberal president in decades."
I agree, and what a sad statement about the Democratic party that is. For in reality, much of Obama's policy is about as far left as Eisenhower's. Really, seriously, go check it out.

The stimulus.
You mean the stimulus that consisted of over forty percent tax cuts and credits(which in economic terms are the least effective form of stimulating the economy). Hey, the rich and corporate loved that windfall.

Health Care Reform.
The one where Obama bailed on the public option, that HCR? Yeah, great accomplishment, now we have a mandated monopoly for the insurance industry with few constraints on prices. Whose bright idea was that?

Financial reform.
One word, weak.

The Iraq war,
Winding it down while doubling down in Afghanistan and opening up shop in Libya and Yemen.

The end of DADT.
Umm, the real ones who forced this issue were, for better or worse, the Log Cabin Republicans. Obama did little of the heavy lifting on this one.

No, he is not a conservative president, though as I mentioned earlier, he seems to work to the right of Ike a lot of the time. He is a center, center right President.

No, he is not passive, he is reactive. He doesn't anticipate the 'Pugs next move(ie the deal he could have gotten on the debt ceiling last Christmas), he doesn't seem to see what is coming down the road, or think ahead. Nor does he seem capable of playing hardball. His instinctive first move is to reach for a compromise in which he gives away over half and winds up giving away three quarters. He is much like Carter, a bright, intelligent, honest, moral man who either can't or won't fight. Admirable qualities in a man, but something of a liability as a president.

[TomCADem]

228. The Debt Ceiling Debacle Was Entirely On The House Republicans...

The debt ceiling has been routinely raised for decades. Up until now, no Congress has seriously messed with it, because to do so would create a crisis. The 14th amendment argument was never the panacea that it is now being touted to be on the left. Heck, when it was first brought up, many folks on this board expressed concern that it was an invitation to dictatorship. Yet, out of convenience, many on the left embraced it.

If anything the debt ceiling debacle should underscore the craziness that President Obama has had to deal with, a party that is absolutely willing to place the economy at risk to achieve an ideological goal. While some call that courage on the part of the right, I call that the use of terror to achieve political ends.

Finally, the rise of the right is not confined to our borders. It is occuring throughout the world. Remember, when other Governemnts in Europe were beginning to pursue austerity measures in 2009, President Obama was pushing a stimulus plan that alarmed many in Europe.

In this day and age, President Obama has been extremely progressive relative to most leaders in the West. While people like to cite Krugman's attacks on President Obama, you should see how he compares U.S. policy under President Obama compared to the actions of policy makers in Europe.

If the "left" can manage to give the House Republicans a free pass on the debt debacle, and blame President Obama, then we are truly screwed in 2012. But, then that is the corporate media narrative. Blame Democrats. Give Republicans a free pass.

[MadHound]

229. Remember back last December,

When Obama was asked why he didn't ask for the debt ceiling to be raised as part of his deal on the tax cut extension, he replied that he was sure that the 'Pugs would act responsibly.

Naive, seriously naive given the 'Pugs behavior. Lack of foresight and forethought. Compounded by the fact that he could have effectively used the 14th amendment, but instead chose to leave that gun unfired as well.

And as far as Obama's political leanings vis-a-vis the real world, sorry, but such relativism is moot. You judge the person by their actual politics, not how they stand in relation to the rest of the world. Obama was, and is, in the center right, that is where he governs from, no matter where the other leaders govern from.

[TomCADem]

230. Not Relativism - In Absolute Terms Obama and 111th Congress Were Amazing

Can you name a similar Congress that accomplished more left leaning legislation in just two years over the past three decades? Go ahead, try. Also, remember that Democrats did try to pass bills that only extended the tax cuts to those making less than $250K as President Obama promised, but that these bills were filibustered by the Republicans. While I would be happy to let all of the tax cuts expire, President Obama was boxed in by his promise not to raise taxes on those making less than $250K. Otherwise, the record speaks for itself. I can't think of a similar two year period with respect to progressive legislation. Can you?

http://www.nationaljournal.com/checklist-legislative-accomplishments-of-the-111th-congress-20101223

Lilly Ledbetter Act, January 29, 2009
Makes it easier for workers to file employment-discrimination lawsuits.

SCHIP, February 4, 2009
Expands health care coverage for children.

Stimulus, February 17, 2009
Provides $787 billion in tax cuts and additional spending to aid U.S. economic-recovery efforts.

Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act, April 21, 2009
Creates incentives to foster volunteer opportunities through programs such as AmeriCorps.

Credit Card Bill of Rights, May 22, 2009
Enhances safeguards to protect consumers from abusive practices.

Tobacco, June 22, 2009
Provides the Food and Drug Administration with enhanced authority to regulate tobacco products.

Cash for Clunkers, August 7, 2009
Provides consumers with a cash incentive to buy automobiles with higher fuel-efficiency standards.

Hate-Crimes Bill, October 28, 2009
Enhances law-enforcement resources to prosecute crimes based on gender and sexual orientation.

Health Care, March 30, 2010
Overhauls the U.S. health care system to provide insurance coverage for more Americans.

Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act, March 30, 2010
Makes the federal government the provider of all student loans.

Financial-Regulatory Reform, July 21, 2010
Expands federal government’s role in regulating financial markets.

Tax Cuts, December 17, 2010
Extends for two years the tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003.

'Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell', December 22, 2010
Lifts the ban on openly gay men and women from serving in the military.

Food Safety, December 21, 2010 (House passed; awaits Obama's signature)
Strengthens regulatory standards intended to protect the nation’s food supply.

New START, December 22, 2010 (Senate passed; awaits Obama's signature)
Implements a new arms-control treaty between the U.S. and Russia.

9/11 First-Responders Bill, December 22, 2010 (House passed; awaits Obama's signature)
Funds medical care for first responders sickened after the September 11 terrorist attacks.

[MadHound]

279. Wow, just wow,

You make this sound like the second coming of FDR, when in truth it was far from that. Yes, you are dealing in relativist terms, just listen to yourself, "

Can you name a similar Congress that accomplished more left leaning legislation in just two years over the past three decades?" That is the very essence of relativism.

[RedSpartan]

226. If for no other reason, THIS is why:

[Poll_Blind]

258. What, are you pointing out that President Obama and most of the Democrats let Thomas skate while...

...forcing Anthony Weiner out?

PB

[upi402]

233. toast

stick a fork in it

[ClarkUSA]

236. lol! We'll see this theme OP for the next 15 months. This and "The Obama campaign called me..."

Too funny!

:rofl:

[999998th word]

237. We need to-It will buy us enough time to educate people 'ALEC exposed'

just broke,and word IS getting out.
We NEED to concentrate on getting our STATE houses -ASAP .,than get DC back.
People hate this,and they're starting to notice,even folks who were apolitical.
A shitload of work,but when one considers the alternative-no viable choice-for now.

[EstimatedProphet]

241. Because of the Supreme Court

[Name removed]

246. Deleted message

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

[pnwmom]

250. Obama's the only Democrat whose name will be on the ballot.

[pnwmom]

251. Why vote for Obama? Because all of the things you're complaining about

would have been that much WORSE under the Rethugs. All these compromises you're complaining about are compromises -- the Rethug president would have dragged put us over the cliff.

You mention gay issues, and say Obama hasn't been doing enough. Right now all the Rethugs are signing pledges to enforce DOMA and to support a constitutional amendment against gay marriage. If you care about any of this, as you say you do, then it should be clear that a vote for the COMPROMISER is better than sitting on your hands and waiting for the far right President we'll get if Obama loses.

[PatrynXX]

252. well they did this experiment in WI

guess how that turned out? The Govt there turned violent against it's own people. The alternative is worse. Change happens from the bottom up. The main course is Obama. The problem is he's dealing with a Conservative congress. I can't blame him on that. The alternative to obama is 100 times worse and like the Republicans who let UBL win even when he's dead (he he's coming back from the dead in Postal III :P as well as everything else the first game didn't offend.) Why would I give up and let the Repukes get what they want. You give a viable option to Obama cool but if you can't get the votes, don't turn him into fucking nader.

[jeanmarc]

255. The Supreme Court

The Supreme Court is the big differentiator for me. That's it.

[Lucian]

256. I like how people say "At least he'll be better than X, Y, or Z."

It's annoying. :eyes:

How is he better? We still have the wars, the Patriot Act, a really bad economy, the rich running the country, union busting, no jobs being created...the list goes on and on.

Seriously, how could it be worse?

[Richardo]

317. There's nothing 'serious' to respond to.

[Tx4obama]

259. The SUPREME COURT of the United States of America.

As it looks right now, Ruth Bader Ginsburg will be retiring in 2013.
We need President Obama to make the next SCOTUS appointment.

[BlueMTexpat]

260. Because if you don't and a Rethug wins, you'll wonder what in the

world you were smoking when you posted this.

[Tx4obama]

262. +100. n/t

[begin_within]

263. This argument is tired and should be packed away for another day.

There is so little difference now between the Republicans and the DLC/pro-corporate Democrat types (including Obama) that the scare tactic of "Would you rather see the Republicans in power again?!?!?!" doesn't have any impact any more.

[MadHound]

282. Another person who is proving my point,

Using fear based arguments as to why we should vote against the 'Pug, but not using reasons why we should vote for Obama. Again, if you rely on that tactic, there is going to be lots of apathy and Obama will use.

Thank you for being one of the examples.

[Lucian]

321. We already have a Rethug-lite in the WH.

Your argument fails.

[B Calm]

264. I'm at the point Obama is going to have to do something extraordinary for the left

to get my vote back. I'm sorely disgusted with him. If I wanted a republican president, I would have voted republican.

[iamthebandfanman]

266. because republicans are the devil

and you have no other choice.

submit to the fear. vote democratic. hooray!

[blkmusclmachine]

267. The SCOTUS is a big "?," Obama's now begun appointing wingnuts for AG (in TX & UT):

I don't trust Obama not to nominate a Bork-type SCOTUS, simply because he doesn't wan't to "ruffle feathers" and appear "partisan." Total fake. Zero chance of anyone in this household voting for Obama in 2012. It'll be the down ballot races that get our consideration.

[Enthusiast]

268. K&R

But Obama is not going to START fighting. You can forget that. He won't get my vote now no matter what he does. I am firmly convinced that he is from the other side.

He doesn't share my ideology or the ideology of my people. If he did he would have stood up for us and stood his ground. He showed plenty of respect for McConnell and others but none for my people. These are my people:

[liberal N proud]

269. Hello President Bachmann

[Liberal Fiscal Hawk]

270. Obama > GOP

Because however bad Obama is, he's better than this new batch of Republicans.

[sendero]

274. I agree with you..

.. the one exception being that I don't think Obama is going to change at all. I think he is doing exactly what he intended to do all along, either because he believes it or it is his mandate from whoever got him into office.

I always thought there was something odd about someone like Obama winning Iowa, it makes a lot more sense now.

I won't vote for him now even if he puts on a show of "reform". At this point, I couldn't believe his sincerity.

By getting a Democrat to sit in the presidency and offer up SS and Medicare, the right has achieved a dream of epic proportions, they have removed the Dem advantage on those issues possibly forever. Thanks Obama.

[The Wizard]

275. Some things have to happen before

we can restore some semblance of democracy: The Senate needs a radical change. One Senator can shut down the government, and it shouldn't take 60% to pass a bill. The Blue Dogs have to go, no ifs ands or buts. Taking back the House and keeping control in the Senate are essential. The President has to understand he's the president of all the people, not just those who hate his guts.

[Gman]

278. Did you not learn a lesson with Nader in 2000?

Just how bad do you want it to get? It can't get any worse? You have another thought coming if you think that.

[PVnRT]

285. Oh, you mean the election that Gore still won?

Despite thousands of centrists and conservadems voting for Bush?

Funny that the relatively small numbers of liberals who voted Nader draw your hatred, yet all those centrists and conservadems must be courted to win their votes.

[Gman]

325. No, I guess you didn't

[Richardo]

287. If you need strangers to tell you why, or for whom to vote, you're better off staying home.

But you got your 100+ recs and 300 responses so kudos, I guess.

[MadHound]

297. Another one who didn't read past the first couple of paragraphs,

Try reading the entire piece, without knee jerking, then get back to me.

[Richardo]

301. I did - and I submit to you that the reason we have a GOP majority in the House is protest votes.

Not so much FOR those tea-party dimwits, but AGAINST Obama, Dems and establishment GOP (in that order).

So, you got your provocative thread title out there, and it provoked people. Yay. But a vote for something or someone counts as much as a vote against something or someone, and both can be powerful motivators.

However, the negative is usually MUCH more motivating - that's why companies have 'Complaint' departments and not 'Everything's OK' departments. It's why Obama was elected in the first place, IMO - as an alternative to eight years of GOP mismanagement.

[MadHound]

316. Well, this is a country, not a corporation,

This is politics, not business, and in this realm, people will vote for much more than they vote against. Go check out the demographics and stats on apathetic voters. You will find that the reason that they don't vote, liberal as they are(and yes, most apathetic non-voters are liberal) is because they feel they don't have anything to vote for.

You've got to inspire people, you've got to give people something solid that they can see you got for them. Relying on fear simply doesn't cut it.

[Eko]

289. Right now

the alternatives are a horror that we dont even want to risk. At least right now.

[a2liberal]

292. K&R (n/t)

[trud]

293. a good reason not to vote for Obama

How many times have we been told, vote for the Democrat, the Republican is much worse. Well, how's that working for ya? It lets the DLC drag the Democratic Party further and further to the right.

Voting third party or write in, a la Nader, has a short term fail, but it seems to be what's needed in the long term. Only when the Democratic Party sees that going right is a way to lose elections will it (1) continue to go right and become irrelevant, allowing a real left party to come into existence, or (2) get its head on straight.

Business are always told,look long term, if you chase just the next quarter's profits, you'll fail long term. That's one of the problems with going public, the stockholders focus near term.

As for me, Obama turning into a Republican was the last straw.

[go west young man]

294. Simply put. We need a better fucking candidate. We need a real progressive.

[disillusioned73]

300. I agree whole heartedly.. but we may have already past

that imaginary thresh hold of voting "for" something.. with the current gridlock, the Repubs have assured a "do nothing" congress and thus a "do nothing" administration especially going forward.

[leftyohiolib]

307. Why should I vote for Obama next year? because

"Well, you want to see Palin, Bachman, insert crazy RW idiot here, to be President?" No, I don't, let's get that straight right now.
you just answered you own question. the republicans got to where we are now because they have been chipping away at this for 30 years not by sitting out elections or voting third party.

this is SELF DEFEATING CUT YOU NOSE OFF IN SPITE OF YOUR FACE THINKING. were all frustrated but the answer is not not-voting the answer is to get more progressives in

[Le Taz Hot]

308. Too late to rec.

but I can kick. Good post!

[I hate liars]

319. In this case, better the devil we DON'T know...

I'd rather have a Republican in the presidency who will rally public opposition to right-wing policies than a right-wing Dem who puts the party faithful to sleep and pushes the country rightward with almost no opposition.

GWB was a total disaster, but Obama is really no better, because he has perpetuated truly awful policies and has capitulated on every point of principle.

The only downside I see to putting a Republican in office is the possibility of more right-wing Supreme Court picks, but that's not enough to get me to vote for someone who has already proven that he's no better than a Republican, and in some ways, is worse.

I'm with you, MadHound. Our country really needs a legitimate primary challenger to Obama.

[divvy]

320. Not my vote, Not this time ....... Now there is REAL change you can belive in

No more money either.....

[GSLevel9]

323. Because the PUG is worse? That's all I got... sorry. nt