Judged now by loyalty to a political leader? No disagreement accepted.

[madfloridian]

This is a partial rewrite from last year, last December in fact. It so perfectly describes the situation now.

I see the situation clearly because I was in such a place myself at one time. It was my first real political activism, and I stretched the loyalty past its appropriate time.

I am sure many remember my loyalty to Dean's campaign during the 2004 election. I was mocked for being devoted to a political personality. Many of us were.

Most of us realized eventually that he was moving on, going back to his centrist roots....and we went other directions as well. I still believe that in that year he could have been a power house against Bush.

It's ironic that so many who mocked me back then are even more devoted to a political personality. They judge me now not by my public education advocacy, not by the stances I take, but because I question some of the policies of this administration.

I believe that as the election year of 2012 progresses, there will be added pressure not to speak out on pertinent issues. Our country is in deep trouble, and we in 2008 gave our party a majority to fix it. They had two years in which they could have turned around so many things, but they did not.

And we lost in 2010 to a group of uninformed people who actually stood up and spoke out loudly for their beliefs, confused and wrongheaded though those beliefs might be. That old canard of Bill Clinton, that it is better to be "wrong and strong" than "weak and right" really took hold. And that was a shame. Being "wrong and strong" is dangerous indeed.

It's been almost impossible to get the word out about the privatization of public education. It has been a topic of mine and of many other bloggers, but the big media outlets have not and probably will never tell of it honestly.

It is a topic that is of necessity critical of the president....because it is his policy. Yet it is easy to be considered disloyal and ignored if we speak of it.

There has been an offer to change the way the cost of living is figured for seniors on Social Security, a change that will cover all other programs as well. It is in reality a cut, but it is not being called that. We are supposed to accept it.

It dates back to the 2010 fiscal commission which had a co-chair who said this of Social Security.

Social Security Is 'A Milk Cow With 310 Million Tits'

"I've made some plenty smart cracks about people on Social Security who milk it to the last degree. You know 'em too...We've reached a point now where it's like a milk cow with 310 million tits!"

"Stop yapping your lips and listen good. This commission might be packed with millionaires, but we're looking out for little people who need Social Security."

Yes, that's the man chosen by the president to co-chair the commission to determine our financial future. The other is not that much better.

More from my rewrite:

The changes to the social safety nets for seniors, the sneaky ways to turn public schools over to management companies who get taxpayer money, the denigration of public school teachers....these things that the right wing and conservative Democrats have wanted for ages are finally coming to pass right now.

.."When there is only one basis for judging the character and worth of people, and that basis is devotion to one man....it will drive away those who are sincere and push them aside from the party.

I remember during the lead up to the Iraq invasion. It was a time our country invaded another country based on lies. I remember that the Republicans would not utter a single word against George Bush. Nor would the media. Nor would our leading Democrats. People like Phil Donahue with high ratings were taken off the air for being anti-war openly.

There's a harm in asking people not to express their views, and to ask them to walk in lockstep.

Crossposted at Twitter

[madfloridian]

1. I want to make it clear....hubby and I worked for, donated to, and voted for Obama

in both elections. He is a highly intelligent and well-informed man. I disagree with him on his education policies strongly, and on his views on the safety nets for seniors. There is nothing wrong with that.

[arely staircase]

12. there is nothing wrong with that

and everything right

i beleive what many object to is the tone of some criticism here and the words that are chosen to do it.

"I disagree with him on his education policies strongly, and on his views on the safety nets for seniors." is quite diferrent from he is a coporatist sell-out, etc.

and let us not pretend this place doesn't have tons of that.

[madfloridian]

13. Then there needs to be differentiation included.

Because some of this is very personal.

[arely staircase]

48. i certainly try to differentiate

i prefer civil discussion myself (though like all i have fallen short many times.) if i have ever been rude to you i apologize, and totally support you, or anyone else's right to disagree with BHO. but i will get my hackles up with the "he is as bad as the republicans, sell-out" crowd.

[madfloridian]

55. Yes, that goes beyond civility.

And there is no need for that. We agree.

[JDPriestly]

106. A person who claims to be a Democrat, runs for office as a Democrat, and then betrays

seniors by agreeing to the chained CPI which will mean cuts to Social Security is "as bad as Republicans" and has sold out the party of FDR.

I hope that we go off the fiscal cliff, and that the Bush tax cuts disappear and the tax rate goes back to what it was up to about 2003 when our economy was flourishing.

[arely staircase]

115. see that is why i can't take you seriously

anyone who thinks obama is "as bad as republicans" is simply not a serious person imho.

[SunSeeker]

129. +1

[1StrongBlackMan]

134. And I would suggest ...

that a person who claims to be a Democrat, Posts on a internet site named DemocraticUnderground as a Democrat, and then continues to spread the chained CPI narrative, without including the exemptions part of the proposal, despite having the flaw in his argument the exclusion presents, is "as bad as the no nothing republicans", we frequently mock.

[JDPriestly]

143. "the exemptions part of the proposal" basically and drastically changes the intent and the

nature of Social Security from one that treats all contributors, all those taxed, as equals and thus gives them equal dignity to one that suggests that the program is a give-away, a charity.

That is why "exemptions" are unacceptable. The program should be left intact and the Trust Fund repaid from tax revenues collected from those who are paying the lowest tax rates in decades.

[MannyGoldstein]

141. If a Democrat does it, then it's OK

You forget about that.

Be careful to present the entire picture in the future. We're watching, you know... now using our recently-expanded bipartisan secret surveillance powers.

Regards,

Third-Way Manny

[iemitsu]

62. The tone of the two statements may be different

but the message is the same. One statement is academic in tone and the other emotional, but its hard to blame anyone here, or in society, for getting emotional about decisions, others are making, that will have direct effects on their lives.
It is acceptable here to use tones of frustration toward republicans, our natural adversaries, but unacceptable to be frustrated with members of our own party when they disappoint us?
Everyone here invests time and energy to be informed about and active in our communities. We care about the political process. And when those, we work to elect, betray us or ignore our best interests, we naturally have emotional responses.
In fact, I would suggest, that betrayal by one of your own is much more emotional than betrayal by one's avowed enemies.
If some here have strong or acid responses to the perceived failures of elected Democrats and that is deemed disloyal to the party or the president, then does that mean that elected officials have no obligation to be equally loyal to those who elected them?
Loyalty is a two way street. Troops are loyal to commanders who both protect the troops and win the battles. But if, after winning or in an attempt to win, a leader offers to sacrifice his own troops he is also sacrificing their loyalty.
It makes it appear that the opposing leaders are working together against their respective troops.

[arely staircase]

68. one may either make his case by lashing out out emotionally

or take a more cerebral/academic/or just plane good-mannered tact. the latter may still illicit rudeness from knee-jerk obama supporters (of which i have been from time to time, especially during the election.) and again i apologize to anyone who has criticized the president in a civil manner, and gotten rudeness or snark from me. conversely i think those who lash out in ways that attack the president and his motives in a manner that is a vicious as any tea bagger nut should be prepared to get back what they dish out.

perfect example: the president "putting social security on the table." i agree with the president's critics in regards to the CPI mess. However, here is how both camps (DU) drive me nuts, or at least a small group that thrives on arguing for arguments sake.

Group One: Let's continually post threads about Obama plan, nay desire) to destroy SS. (Even thought tis is hyperbole at best and straight out ingeniousness at worst.)

Group Two: He never agreed to SS cuts. (hyperbole at best and straight out disengenousness at worst)

Group Three (my group): Let's hold BHO's feet to the fire - in a positive way. Let's call the White House, fence sitting Dems and even GOPers, flood them wit e-mails. And keep posting. But let's get over the proving who is right and work to a common goal like we did in November.

That Goal:

Restore Middle Class Tax cuts and strengthen, not weaken the social safety net!

[HiPointDem]

87. you're just debating manners, the message is the same. at some point, manners fail.

[arely staircase]

116. manners are good

eom

[tavalon]

103. I think group three is the most sane of all

[madfloridian]

105. And another goal very necessary. Fund public schools, stop taking resources from them

to fund charters and give vouchers. Taxpayer money should not be taken from public education and given to private management companies.

[liberal_at_heart]

107. and lots of it

First he agrees to support charters and then he comes up with this lets fund math and science. Math and science are great. They deserve funding, but so do all other departments. Our entire public school system needs more funding, a lot of funding. We need real solutions, not gimmicks.

[arely staircase]

117. i am a public school teacher

so, yeah - all that.

[KoKo]

167. Recommend....thoughtful with a perspective that many of us here for long time can much appreciate!

[JDPriestly]

108. What do you mean by "strengthen . . . the social safety net."

How do you think that should be done?

Because that is the treacherous term that Obama used, and now we hear that he offered a chained CPI for not only Social Security but some other programs including veterans' benefits. That does not strengthen my social safety net. I am retired. I retired in the last few years not long after the Bush tax cuts. I and many of my generation and slightly younger paid higher Social Security taxes than our parents believing the money would be used to "strengthen" Social Security so that there would be enough money in the Trust Fund to cover the baby boomers.

We paid the tax rates that will return if we go over the fiscal cliff. Apparently today's salary-receivers think those rates are too high.

The Republicans, Obama and Pelosi have shown a willingness to "strengthen" the social safety net by taking more money from the generations that paid the extra Social Security taxes and the higher tax rates.

That is simply not right. It isn't fair. It isn't morally correct. It is taking money from the people who already paid a higher share.

Obama reportedly has withdrawn this deal. I hope that he has seen the error in the logic.

But, I am aware of the fact that Obama has appointed a number of people as his advisers who have ties to Pete Peterson the arch-foe of Social Security. So I think we who want to see Social Security not strengthened but permitted to continue to be as strong as it already is and always will be, we who know that it is the most popular government program of all time need to be vigilant and continue to explain what we believe to be right with regard to social programs.

I am a fighter for what I believe is right. I will not stop being a fighter for what I believe is right. America needs a strong social safety net.

Talk about strengthening the social safety net is sloganeering. What do you mean when you say "strengthen? That is the issue. Because Obama has apparently been using the term to refer to policies that would weaken Social Security.


If more DUers were like me, who knows? We might actually have a Democratic Majority in the House -- or a Republican party with rational leadership.

Don't compromise with wrong. You will end up in not only being wrong but doing wrong.

[arely staircase]

118. tax the wealthy to pay for it

eom

[iemitsu]

110. I too choose door number 3.

It is the most productive attitude and IMO the best approach to convincing others to do likewise both on DU and in real life.

[limpyhobbler]

67. hang on now,

So this is interesting

So are people actually bothered if I call Obama a corporatist? He supports policies of corporate America right? So how is he not a corporatist?

Also he is a huge sell out. He started out as a community organizer in Chicago and now he uses his Presidency to defend and enforce corporate power in America and around the world.

The peons who voted for him out of hope, and because we really had no choice, he treats us like trash. Why hasn't he used the Preseidency to push for real change, to help the poor and the middle class? Why does he keep talking on about how he loves free markets and free trade deals? Why hasn't he talked about a WPA-style public employment program to create jobs and transition America to a sustainable economy?

I can understand why people vote for him, because the alternative is worse. But that doesn't mean we should pretend he is anything other than he really is.

I don't really feel like I owe him any special respect over the respect I owe every human being. He's nobody special.

[arely staircase]

69. yeah, hyberbolic/strawman posts like that are probably going to get some pushback

which you probably enjoy.

[limpyhobbler]

72. I rather tend to disagree with what you just said

That post was neither hyperbolic nor a strawman. It was only a realistic description of the way President Obama has chosen to use his office in defense of so-called free markets and corporate power.

What about it do you think is hyperbolic anyway? Or a strawman?

[arely staircase]

74. the whole "sellout" business in hyperbolic

pres. obama is far more conservative than, not just you but me as well. i would love to see this country embark on WPA style projects as you wrote. the fact that he is to the right of you or i doesn't make him a sellout or any of the other gratuitous words you used to describe him.

[limpyhobbler]

76. He turned from a common man into a millionaire on the basis because of his role in government

Like most politicians to. It's dumb but getting elected to Congress is a ticket to being a millionaire.

If we would have asked community organizer Obama his views on international arms deals, or on tar sands oil, or expanding war in Africa, or on cutting Social Security, would they have been the same? Or has he changed?

His views have changed as he rose up in the ranks of power and he realized the words he needed to speak to appeal to big money.

He made the choice that the most important thing was getting money. Getting money personally, and getting money to get elected. He smoked drugs, now he puts people in jail for smoking drugs.

That's a sell-out in my book. I can understand if maybe you disagree with that.
But it's not like a totally ridiculous idea. It's common sense. Everybody understands politicians need to sell out a little bit to get money from the establishment.

[SunSeeker]

133. He has done what it takes to stay in office, where he has been able to pass progressive legislation.

Like saving the auto industry, repealing DADT, passing healthcare reform. Of course he has to walk a fine line and temper his words to get money from donors. He can't rely on your $5 to stay in office. Yes, it sucks that Keystone is not DOA, but thanks to President Obama, my brother will have health insurance for the first time in his adult life (he's 51). That's a BFD. Dennis Kucinich couldn't have done that for him.

[Demit]

137. The word that was gratuitous was "strawman." And it was one you used.

Which is why you ignored that part of the poster's honest question.

The posts in these threads slay me. The people who complain about tone & misused words by others...who are so quick to accuse others of bad motivations...and now the splitting hairs about whether a word is hyperbolic or not. How many times does someone have to sell out before it's okay by you to call them a sellout? If they only sell out once or twice that's fine with you? Three or more times and okay, maybe it isn't hyperbolic anymore?

During Obama's first term we projected onto him an amazing ability to play eleventy-dimensional chess. Well, we've have four years to watch him, and now we've had these last eight weeks to see what he seems to want to do with the decisive win we gave him. I don't feel easy about it and I don't blame others who are more vociferous than I am about it. He is proving to be not the man he led us—in two election campaigns now—to believe he was.

[arely staircase]

139. speak for yourself. i think obama is an awesome president!

and so does the leftwing base of very liberal democrats according to the election results and every exit poll.

sure a handful of naderite losers hate him. but haters gonna hate.

[Demit]

144. I think you'd better refresh your understanding of the concept of strawman.

You wrongly accuse others of creating one, then you create one yourself. That is to say, you are calling people critical of the president "haters," and declaring that they are "naderites."

And I would REALLY like a link to any poll that shows how "leftwing," "very liberal" democrats thought that "Obama is an awesome president." I hope you can provide that to me. I'm especially interested in the wording of the question Democratic voters would have been asked to elicit such a response.

[creeksneakers2]

97. reality

There isn't any money for a WPA style public works plan. We are running trillion dollar deficits. That's a huge stimulus already, and it hasn't fixed everything. We also have a Republican House to deal with.

Obama supports some policies corporations support. He also opposes many. He may be well to the right of you, but probably most of America is too. "Corporatist" makes him sound like he's Steve Forbes or something.

[JDPriestly]

111. The money for Social Security is in the Social Security trust fund. It is there. It will be enough

for a long time.

What we don't have enough money for is are overextended military and its wasteful programs.

The average American recipient of Social Security receives between $1200 and $1300 per month. If we cannot afford benefits at that amount for our seniors, and if we don't pay that small amount in benefits for seniors, then we have no business fighting wars and intervening around the world.

$1200 or $1300 is a lot of money if you live in Nigeria or India, but it really does not go far if you live in the US and have to pay American prices for utilities, rent, insurance, healthcare (and Medicare is not free, not at all. You still have lots of expenses.), taxes, eat and dress warmly in the winter.

If we have to cut expenditures, we should cut our military budgets.

We are not doing that well in Afghanistan. The sooner we are out the better. It's a shame our military could not have done a better job there. Maybe reducing the military budget will make them more efficient.

Why are we paying Pakistan to patrol its own borders at this time. They hid Bin Laden or at least could not locate him for years when he was literally living in a good-sized compound not far from a major Pakistani military base. And we pay them????

We do not need to have such a large presence in some areas of Europe. Time to close some bases and save some money.

We need to have a total review of our military budget. If we make it leaner, we will be able to take care of our children and their schools, our elderly and encourage the private sector to create jobs that do not rely on government contracts.

It's so easy for private industry to just get no-bid military contracts or even competitive military contracts. The pay is certain. Then the companies that get those contracts turn around and complain about spending money on Social Security, education, Medicare, veterans' benefits, food stamps, etc.

This is completely perverse. Sorry, I cannot be "nice" about it. What I would like to hear is an argument as strong as mine that focuses as much as I do on the policy.

Those who complain about the bitter language and caustic style of those of us who feel we are being betrayed are attacking us as people rather than attacking our logic, our arguments. I think that proves the weakness of the basis for the support of the chained CPI.

Those who post these "we must support Obama no matter what" posts are simply avoiding having to admit that they cannot defend the policies that Obama has offered as "compromises" and which are not compromises but are sell-outs.

There simply is no accurate, "nice" language for a sell-out. It isn't a compromise. We go over the fiscal cliff and return to the tax levels of the Clinton era. Seems fair to me as one who loyally paid them without complaining.

[creeksneakers2]

148. I agree with you about cutting the military

I wish there was more of a movement for cutting the military. If we could cut there, much of the pressure on other parts of the budget would evaporate.

But even if we cut the military in half, that only saves three or four hundred billion a year. I'm all for going off the cliff too, and that would raise maybe five hundred billion a year. That still leaves a deficit, and no money for a WPA program. We could create a WPA program and continue to run a big deficit, but then its only a matter of time until the country collapses.

I don't know if you were responding to me about changing the CPI. I didn't discuss that. I don't think we should do that unless its a last resort after first cutting the military and raising taxes and seeing what else could be cut first.

I've never told anybody they should support Obama no matter what. I don't expect people to hide their disagreements either, except if they want to support a third party candidate during elections.

[sabrina 1]

112. There is money that could be spent on for WPA program. There is plenty of money

being spent on wars and rather than ending them we are expanding them into so many countries now it's hard to keep track.

How much is spent on the useless Government Organization with the Orwellian title, Homeland Security eg? Talk about an expansion of Government AND an expansion of the cost! I wonder why no one asks the Tea Baggers how they feel about Bush's 'big government' programs which benefit no one except the MIC and its various tentacles.

The US HAS money, it is not however being spent on the American people.

It is being spent for the benefit of a small % of the population, pouring more and more money into their hands.

Money is not the problem, priorities are the problem and it is the fault of the American people who choose to look the other way, or refuse to hold their elected officials accountable out some kind of misguided notion that they deserver more respect than any other citizen.

When the people stop fighting among themselves of their 'teams' and start acting like grown ups facing the reality that electing representatives = hiring employees who are accountable to the people. That is does not equal creating superior beings who are beyond criticism, then maybe we can ensure that our money is spent on this Country, NOT funneled into the hands of some of the least moral and in fact most dangerous people in our society. It is our duty to do so and we have not done it so far.

[creeksneakers2]

149. There isn't enough money there to cover the deficit

[sabrina 1]

151. And what does that have to do with the SS fund?

We know about the economic collapse and we know what caused it. Do you want to pay for other people's gambling debts and corruption? That doesn't make sense.

They can stop gambling with our money but they do not get to make us pay for their corruption with the SS fund which had zero, nothing to do with the defiicit.

They don't get to take the people's money especially since we already bailed them out and all they did was keep spending.

We never gave them permission to use what they borrowed from our fund for their corrupt projects. This is now their problem, and we want to be repaid, not robbed again.

[creeksneakers2]

157. Why ask me?

I was talking about money for a WPA type program.

[rhett o rick]

162. The deficit is the least of our problems. We need to kick-start the economy. That may increase the

deficit. Be better to cut defense.

[creeksneakers2]

174. Increase the deficit how much?

Paul Krugman said before a stimulus needs to be $1.5 trillion to get meaningful results. We are heading off a cliff as it is. Another $1.5 trillion would be crazy. As previously, I agree we should cut defense. But since jobs would be lost from the defense cuts, you would need an even bigger stimulus to net a Krugman package.

[rhett o rick]

201. So what's the alternative? The Republican plan of austerity? Is that what you recommend?

If we dont get the economy up and running, kiss your ass goodbye.

[creeksneakers2]

203. The deficits now is a big stimulus package

I don't think either side wants to cut it by much. We are slowly crawling out of a hole.

If it were up to me, we'd go off the cliff and stay there. Things would be very bad in the short run, but we'd be on the road to averting total disaster down the road. Putting off solving the deficit will only make things worse.

[Chathamization]

220. Crazy like a fox

$1.5 trillion could be financed at ~$43 billion a year, which would mean it could easily be covered by small tax increases on the wealthy. After 30 years of 3% inflation, it would be worth about half that amount, and payments would likely be worth about half that if we chose to roll the debt over (and we should be pushing for higher inflation).

It would also be used to do things that we are going to need to do sooner or later - repair our infrastructure, cut our carbon emissions, etc. We can either do it now, when we can borrow for less, when we won't crowd out the private sector, and we can stimulate our economy, or later, when we won't have those benefits and their will be even more to repair.

[duffyduff]

147. The federal government can do it; after all, it by definition can't go broke

It's all a matter of political will.

[creeksneakers2]

156. It can turn into Greece

[sabrina 1]

171. Yes, and it is on its way to doing that as our elected officials push the same

failed Austerity policies, disguised now under a different name since OWS took to the streets and exposed what these policies are doing to this country and around the globe.

Austerity, a failed, well for the people, not of the wealthy, with the goal of destroying all Social Programs as they are doing in Greece, privatizing everything while pretending to be 'fixing' the 'deficit'. Thankfully it is not as easy as it used to be to fool the people.

[creeksneakers2]

175. Austerity is the certain result

of going broke. Who wants to lend Greece the money to keep going further into debt?

[Doctor_J]

125. Also, I would NEVER denigrate the president or his policies in a discussion with a Repuke

I am not sure how I will respond when I get next week's chain e-mail subject "See - I told you Obama would cut SS". That is going to be tough.

We worked for, voted for, and donated to both times. Donated and voted D in 2010.

But his policies on education, entitlements, white collar crime, detention, prosecution of pot smokers, torture, Pentagon spending, unions, health care, and other progressive issues are a disaster for America, Americans, and the party.

[kenny blankenship]

2. Hail Victory and all that.

Last edited Sat Dec 29, 2012, 01:22 PM - Edit history (2)

[T Roosevelt]

3. It's interesting to see DU fall into the same trap

Having taken a break from DU for some time, it's interesting to see it has devolved into two factions - pro-Obama, and everyone else. I hesitate to say anti-Obama, or even not pro-Obama. Everyone who dares criticize Obama seems to fall into the latter groups, since to criticize means that you are clearly against the president.

This is exactly the same as the lead-up to Iraq - how dare anyone be critical of Bush. Guess what, that roads been taken, and it's not the way to govern. Obama has clearly done things that deserve to be criticized. To not call him out on them indicates a cult of personality is taking over...

[madfloridian]

4. That rewrite was one of my last posts...

before being gone almost a year.

[JoePhilly]

8. I have to disagree.

We just had 3 weeks of endless, breathless, DU threads, in which the prediction was Obama was going to agree to a deal to CUT Social Security.

Once posted, those threads drew many, many responses attacking Obama, agreeing that he was about to CAVE and cut SS.

And now, its pretty clear, Obama is not going to make such a deal. Some who responded in those threads said as much. All of the "evidence" that Obama "intends" or "desires" to make such cuts, are thin.

There is nothing wrong with being critical. But let's make sure we know what people are being critical of. Some are being critical of what they see as Obama's INTENT.

I should also mention that here on DU, the prediction that Obama is about to cut SS are not new. We've seen the flame wars at least 6 times. Here it comes!!! Obama is going to cut SS!!!!

Then, it does not happen. But the outrage remains. And then pops back up at the next opportunity. Obama hates us!!!! Here it comes!!!

And the cycle continues.

[madfloridian]

11. You are wrong. He DID put it on the table. From the WH transcript:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022030190

" MR. CARNEY: Well, let’s be clear about one thing: The President didn’t put it on the table. This is something that Republicans want. And it is --

Q But the Republicans --

MR. CARNEY: -- part of his -- if I could please answer Sam’s question, I’d appreciate it. And the President did include it in his counterproposal, his counteroffer, as part of this process, as part of the negotiation process. I would note that this is a technical change -- would be if instated -- to the way that economists calculate inflation, and it would affect every program that has -- that uses the CPI in its calculations. And so it’s not directed at one particular program; it would affect every program that uses CPI. There are also -- as part of the President’s proposals, he would make sure that the most vulnerable were exempted out from this change.

But let’s be clear, this is something that the Republicans have asked for, and as part of an effort to find common ground with the Republicans, the President has agreed to put this in his proposal -- agreed to have this as part of a broad deficit reduction package that includes asking the wealthiest to pay more so that we can achieve the kind of revenue targets that are necessary for a balanced approach to deficit reduction.

[JoePhilly]

20. First, re-read the second paragraph. Boehner included it in his proposal, Obama

simply left it in. Obama did not PROPOSE it.

But that's irrelevant to the point.

Its not happening. Let Boehner try to bid for it. Let the GOP come forward and demand SS cuts.

BTW ... did you see Obama on TV tonight. You think he's going to cut SS this week?

I don't.

[madfloridian]

22. He DID put it on the table. Denial doesn't help.

[JoePhilly]

24. I thought he put it on the table when he created the Debt Commission ... or at least during the LAST

debt ceiling fight.

Apparently, Obama puts it on the table every 4 months or so.

And DU explodes. Obama is about to CAVE and CUT Social Security ... here it comes!!! Any second!!!

And then, it doesn't happen. And won't happen this time.

And DU will set its hair on fire in a few months, with screams of how Obama is demanding SS cuts.

[madfloridian]

27. Why is that?

Why are Democrats using Social Security as a political pawn?

[cui bono]

29. He just did it a week and a half ago. Look up the press briefing.

That's why people are talking about it.

If you don't believe it then I can't help you. You keep posting that it didn't happen or that it's just speculation but it did actually happen.

[Marr]

60. Yes, he did it then, too.

And then, as now, the political establishment couldn't get their "grand bargain" past the loony, "won't take yes for an answer" Teabagger wing.

[JoePhilly]

73. If he did it "then", why are folks screaming that he just did it now.

Go back over the DU threads on this.

And endless stream of folks claiming that Obama was ABOUT to cave.

How could Obama be "about to cave" if he actually caved on this exact point 2 or even 3 years ago?

Or ... and try to follow me ... each time this comes up ... there is a group who is SURE ... absolutely sure, that Obama is going to cut a deal that actually cuts SS.

DU bursts into flames. And when it doesn't happen, the most vocal walk it back and claim that Obama "for the first time ever" but SS on the table.

They can't handle the fact that their hair on fire OPs were wrong. Its not happening. And so, they walk it back to "Obama JUST put it on the table".

And some, like you just did, credit the Tea Party for not allowing Obama's evil plan to go forward. Ironic.

[Marr]

109. You're claiming he never made a similar offer during the debt ceiling "crisis"?

Sorry, but he did.

This is the second time Obama has offered to make these kinds of very un-Democratic cuts, and it's the second time the only thing stopping it was the lunatic Teabagger wing's refusal to take "yes" for an answer.

[limpyhobbler]

61. This is the problem. People keep making excuses for Obama, or

for any Democrats, when they do this stuff. So that enables them to keep on consenting to more and more conservative policies. I wish people would quit making excuses for it, so we could just push all the talk of Social Security cutting out of the Party for good.

[tavalon]

104. That was damning with faint praise

Did you mean to do that?

Simply left it in? Really, really?

[TheKentuckian]

51. The poster's stance is the Presidents are omnipotent (except when that isn't convenient)

and that if the President intended to make such a deal it would be done.

Dubya never wanted to privatize Social Security, he was defending it because if he wasn't Social Security would be privatized, see.

FDR wasn't really trying to stack the bench, them thar nomination were a feint, see. What he was trying to do was maintain a firewall against his own policies.

The poster loves to proclaim that if Obama really wants to cut Social Security, that he is terrible at it. Joe thinks such is easily done so he must also believe TeaPubliKlans are protectors of Social Security or alternatively poor at doing so.

The point seems to be to set up a frame that means that unless there is a done deal, no deal was even sought or otherwise known as silliness.

[cui bono]

21. Yes, mad is right. PBO DID put SS on the table as I mentioned to you in another thread.

A fact is not a prediction. He put it in his proposal to the Repubs at their request. He didn't even make them put it in their offer.

It doesn't seem that you are actually listening to the criticisms but rather reacting emotionally to the fact that Obama is being criticized. I apologize if I'm wrong, but that's what I'm getting from this post and the other one in the other thread.

[JoePhilly]

26. If I let you bid on my special edition Babe ruth rookie card, does that mean I actually want you to

have it?

Obama's first term is about to end. Some on DU have been absolutely sure that he was planning to cut SS. They see it as part of his plan. Being a corporatist and all.

But it has not happened. If he LOST in the 2012 election, they'd have been wrong.

By winning reelection, Obama has given them a second opportunity to scream that he plans to cut SS.

And so we'll be hearing that refrain for the next 3 years or so.

[madfloridian]

30. Yes, you WILL be hearing that refrain...again and again.

[JoePhilly]

37. Probably because its not going to happen.

But some will continue to predict it, in periodic hair on fire DU threads.

[cui bono]

32. That isn't a good analogy.

We're talking real negotiations here. If Obama put it in then Boehner accepted and got the Repubs to pass it Obama can't just say, I just told you I would do that but I won't really do it. How stupid would that be?

You seem to just want to complain about critics. Fine. But that doesn't change the fact that Obama offered up cuts to SS. Whether or not it ultimately happens or not is unknown at this time. Doesn't change the fact that he offered cuts to SS.

And you should be happy that people are worried about it and are taking action to stop it. Unless you are independently wealthy and won't be counting on your benefits to help you get through after retirement.

[JoePhilly]

36. Your first point is wrong.

Boehner just did EXACTLY what you claim Obama can't do. And Boehner did it PUBLICLY.

You might not realize, but Obama never made a full public offer on any of this. He simply said, Ok, if I give here, what do I get? There was no legislation.

You can be critical all you want. But if you (or others) want to claim Obama caved, make sure that he actually does cave. The DU predictions that Obama was ABOUT to cave and agree to a deal that cuts SS, appear to be wrong, again.

[cui bono]

41. And what kind of credibility does Boehner have?

Is that what you want for Obama? To lose all credibility and be seen as someone who can't lead? That's how people see Boehner. Of course it's "physically" possible, but as I said, it would be stupid.

I know full well there was no legislation. You're the one who was saying it was only DU worrying about Obama offering it, but Obama did offer it. It was in his proposal. Carney said it in the briefing.

Your last paragraph is completely incorrect, Obama did cave, he did offer SS cuts - even though they have nothing to do with the deficit/fiscal cliff negotiations.

You keep denying it but it's a fact.

[bahrbearian]

45. So why are you taking bids on your special Babe Ruth Rookie card?

Are you going to sell it or are you just trying to see what you can get for it? With intent to sell it later. Are your cards adding to your debt? or are they of value.

[Demo_Chris]

64. Those who said this were correct; Obama DID offer that deal

[Autumn]

65. I have to disagree, It wasn't a prediction, it was the FACT that he offered it

to them, when SS has nothing to do with the problem. His INTENT was to offer it and he did. Yeah, that was fucking outrageous.

[L0oniX]

35. hickup dupe

[L0oniX]

39. Ever try to criticize someone for being into American Idol?

Every try to criticize someone for being into Obama Idol?

Replace the word "Idol"with "Idiot"?

Weren't the Germans into Hitler ...and what happened to those who criticized him? So I guess it could be worse for us on DU. I'm hoping the witch hunt ends soon. I'm tired of the stupid "Are you of the body".

[roguevalley]

47. I agree. Some of us older folks understand that this kind of group think

is not democratic. Not big or small D democratic. one can speak about their opinions about Mr. Obama without people calling you a 'hater'. There aren't words in any known language that can express the contempt I have for that word.

To assume that the people who disagree with his policies are hating HIM is stupid and low brow. I admire him as a man, father, smart politician and a person of character. I loathe some of his policies and so do many here. However to express that is to not run with the herd in their unwavering no matter what happens devotion to Mr. Obama. That sort of shit will never fly with me. I'm too old to be silent.

It is possible to 'hate the sin and love the sinner'. That is, to dislike policies and love the man. I hate the drone shit. 179 dead children do NOT justify this program. So, if dead children here matter, ie terrorism attacks, dead children there should count too. If I express this, I am a 'hater'.

I thought this was DU, not eighth grade. I think there are a lot of people born since Reagan who don't know that the world was difference once and you could disagree without being disagreeable. And I am not saying that about the disagreers.

Cheers.

[madfloridian]

94. I like your post.

Group think is never healthy. This part of your post:

"To assume that the people who disagree with his policies are hating HIM is stupid and low brow. I admire him as a man, father, smart politician and a person of character. I loathe some of his policies and so do many here. However to express that is to not run with the herd in their unwavering no matter what happens devotion to Mr. Obama. That sort of shit will never fly with me. I'm too old to be silent."

I so agree. We can respect him as a good and intelligent man and overall good president.

But seeing Social Security put on the table, and esp. seeing public education harmed is killing me.

[roguevalley]

98. I hear you, Madfloridian. I know people who will die because of cuts. Somehow

to some that is of less consequence than obsequious rah-rahing. Take care down there, my dear

[Puzzledtraveller]

185. Well said, thank you.

[msongs]

5. corporatizing public schools is an abomination NO DEMOCRAT should support...period nt

[madfloridian]

7. I agree, but words are wasted now.

Posts drop unless they are sensationalized and hateful. I can't do that. Not worth it.

[Sekhmets Daughter]

14. I asked my republican

ex-husband "Do you think a for-profit school can deliver good education for less money than public schools? And do you understand that right now they are operating many schools as 'loss leaders'? How can anything be cheaper if you add a layer of profit to it?" The ex is no dummy when it comes to his money and he said "No, of course not." I said well then think about what you're doing when you vote for someone who wants to give you more charter schools to pay for. His ballot was more blue this past election than it ever has been. I agree we need to scream bloody murder about this issue.

[madfloridian]

23. Yes, we should. Thanks.

[tblue]

6. If we don't push from the Left, the only pushing will be from the Right.

We do a grave injustice to our own principles when we ignore them, assuming of course that we have principles.

[madfloridian]

17. That's what is happening.

Their voices are louder.

[BlueNoteSpecial]

33. Louder, no. Grossly overfunded, yes.

[madfloridian]

44. Good point.

[graham4anything]

9. I remember 1968, 1980 and 2000. Fracture means losing. Whiners wanting too much normally do too

[madfloridian]

18. Whiners like those who support public education? Whiners like the elderly?

[cui bono]

25. I disagree and your use of the term whiners shows you aren't listening.

It's easy to brush off unwanted criticism by being dismissive and calling all critics whiners. But in doing so you fail to look at the issues being brought up and there is a lot to be critical of when Obama's policies are looked at objectively.

The real problem is when people are dismissive of complaints, as you just were, and applaud everything the president does even when it takes the party and country further right. So now we have a Dem party and president who are center at best and we have no one representing the left any more. Consequently, the right has shifted to extreme right. Now polls show that the people of this country are left of the Dem party, so who is losing? We are. When you don't speak up there are consequences. And one of the consequences is we have the Tea Party running the show from the extreme right and no one is stnading up for the working class and the poor any more.

Also, 2000 wasn't lost, it was stolen. And who spoke out? Where was everybody? We all just let them steal the presidency. What a shame. That was not due to whiners, that was due to complacency. We are experiencing a bad spate of complacency right now too because people think Obama is liberal when he's not, they are so relieved to have him instead of GWB or Romney they are seeing what he's really doing, and a lot of it is worse than GWB. But those who point that out are dismissed as whiners. And so it continues to get worse.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

28. Well said.

[graham4anything]

34. if you don't win, you lose. 2000 whiners voted for Ralph Nader who directly caused the loss

NH 2000 says it all.
November came before Dec.
the 5 to 4 Scotus theft happened in Dec.in Florida.

Nader was the thief in NH in November

Nader's mega votes in Nov. cause Bush to go over 270, the only number that mattered

[Fumesucker]

70. More Republicans than Democrats voted for Nader in NH in 2000

Nader took no net votes from Gore in NH.

Stop saying things that are blatantly untrue.

http://politizine.blogspot.com/2004/02/debunking-myth-ralph-nader-didnt-cost.html

In New Hampshire, CNN's exit polling showed Nader taking more votes from Republicans than Democrats by a two-to-one margin. Nader received 2 percent of the Republican vote and 1 percent of the Democrat vote. Nader also took 7 percent of the independent vote.
At the same time, 6 percent of registered Democrats voted for Bush! This is the real reason why Gore lost: He couldn't hold his own base! The Democrats never want to talk about this. They never want to talk about their negativity or the lousy campaign Gore ran. It's all, 'It's Nader's fault, it's Nader's ego,' ad nauseum. But back to the exit polling.

[graham4anything]

80. Nader was behind the biggest voter stay home drive. 2000 had the least amount of voters

stop hiding the truth- that 2000 had the LEAST amount of voters ever, probably because of Nader told people their vote did not matter and because he had followers from the 60s, millions believed him and stayed home

It's not just how many votes he got. It was how many didnot bother because of his lie.

And the SCOTUS is the lie.

Nader DIRECTLY caused all that happened between 2001-2008.

9-11,, corporate personhood, and the incidents in mass shootings because the SCOTUS gun ruling in the Bush years.

Thanks Ralph for saying SCOTUS was the same with Gore or Bush.

Yeah, Ralphie, sure, Gore would have picked Roberts and Alito.

sure, Ralph, sure.

remember-the low vote total means that those voters weren't in exit poll reports.
THEY DID NOT VOTE THANKS TO NADER.

[Fumesucker]

81. And six percent of Democrats voted for Bush

Don't blame that on Nader.

If the Democrats for Dubya vote had not existed then Gore would have gone to the White House.

Six fucking percent and you're whining over two percent.

[graham4anything]

114. one good thing about Nader-He insured never will a 3rd party be more than a gnat

all it proves is HOW GREAT OBAMA IS- he won. I don't see Nader or Gore or Kerry on the presidential placemat pictures. Only winners get there. I also don't see the whiners stars on there either. Nope, no Kucinich. He couldn't even get to the 3rd debate. No Bernie Sanders.
Nope.

Reason Bernie and Dennis can keep yapping is, they know they will never advance anywhere so they have the freedom to do as they choose. And keep doing it.
But dirty little secret-they vote YES with the democrats when a yes vote is needed.
When its okay to keep separate, they vote No.
At end of the day- PARTY COMES FIRST

as it should when there will always only be two parties and one choice is a zillion times better than the other.

The one great thing about Ralph Nader? He insured there will never be a 3rd party in America that is more than a gnat on a hot summer day. Just a pest is all they ever will be again.
Thanks Ralph. That more than anything is your legacy.

As a lifetime liberal democrat, I thank Ralph and his ego.Because no longer do I have to worry about democrats whining and voting 3rd party because there are NO third parties to the left worth anything at all, Thanks to Ralph Nader
In 2000, Nader was mosquito like, and mosquitos could be dangerous. Now they are just a gnat, harmless but irritants, but just make that motion with ones hand and they are gone.

[madfloridian]

43. ....

[Sekhmets Daughter]

10. I think the problems arise

when the criticism is coupled with threats. I've read too many posts saying "I'll never vote for ________ again, if he/she does this or that" The latest threats have been the insistence that progressives will abandon the party if the Chained CPI goes into effect. President Obama has made numerous decisions of which I don't approve, but I know, with every fiber of my being, that at his most moderate self he is 100 times better than any choice offered up by the GOP. I have no problem with people criticizing his actions. I think we should speak out, write to him, our congress critters, our local newspapers and voice those criticism in any forum to which we have access. But taking the position that you will not support a particular Democratic candidate seems more that a bit self-defeating to me. Every time republicans have won a big election, the Democrats have moved to the right.... If Democrats continue to win national elections the GOP will have no choice, the Tea Party notwithstanding, but to move to the left. If Democrats lose, particularly because too many sit out an election or vote for a third party, republicans will continue to move rightward. How does that benefit anyone?

[madfloridian]

15. The problems arise at the slightest hint....

that someone is talking about his policies in a negative way.

Public education is being destroyed under Arne Duncan, and by now the president knows it. So we have to consider it his policy.

It is scary to me that this can happen because of fear of criticism.

[Sekhmets Daughter]

38. I haven't seen much fear of criticism here....

I've seen a lot of intransigence from those who will brook no criticism and those who seem to always find something to criticize. I'm new to DU, just came aboard in June, for a group that likes to think of itself as big tent and tolerant, I see a boatload of intolerance here. Your own reply to is perfect example. I don't mean to offend you because I have enjoyed reading many of your posts, but to claim
that the problem is "fear of criticism" on a site where everyone is criticizing everything and everyone constantly seems to be hyperbole at best.

[madfloridian]

42. Not fear of criticism...

Fear of posting about policies and issues because of attacks. I am just coming back after a year, and a series of anonymous attacks for my "one-note" postings on education.

Yes, you are right. There is a boatload of intolerance, and that harms a site that should be a great source of truth and information.

[roguevalley]

52. given that we are a mixture of everyone from obscenely wealthy to peopl living in

cars and the street, I think everyone SHOULD have their say. We aren't talking about a baseball player. We are talking about a man whose ideas and power will deeply and intensely impact the LIVES of people NOW. We should be there scrutinizing and speaking up. it is our duty. 49,000, 000 people are now in poverty because people were silent and didn't speak up. Some of them post here. I am one of them. I will ALWAYS speak up.

[Blue_In_AK]

75. ++++++++

[roguevalley]

78. :D

[Blue_In_AK]

89. I had a nice reply typed to you last night

but then the thread got locked. I was going to tell you that we only got about six inches of snow on Christmas Day, not as much as you, but it was beautiful nonetheless. I hope you all are having a nice holiday. You should get in touch next time you're coming up here and we could get together for coffee or something.

[roguevalley]

93. I would love that, Blue. Hugs, honey. Me- trying to find someone to clear my roof. :D

[Sekhmets Daughter]

53. So much for tolerance.

It is a puzzlement. I'm, sorry you've run afoul of the narrow minded.

[roguevalley]

79. I love your handle, Sekhmets Daughter

Egyptologist or hobbyist?

[Sekhmets Daughter]

121. LOL! Neither,

I simply enjoy reading the mythology of ancient cultures.

[arely staircase]

49. I took Obama's bumper sticker off my car today

those are my favorites.

[Sekhmets Daughter]

54. Amazing isn't it? n/t

[Robb]

16. "I've yelled about how I can't yell about this so long, I've lost my voice!"

[madfloridian]

19. Some voices are louder than others.

That's not necessarily a good thing.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

31. May I say -

that it is a pleasure seeing you posting back here? This place needs voices like your, more than ever.

The one thing that the past 12 years of deep political activity have taught me is how dangerous team "loyalty" can be. I spent four years cataloging all the nasty W was up to -- I went to march after march, engaged in endless political activity, and cried/raged year after year right here at DU at madness.

Imagine my surprise and deep horror when I found myself having to swallow much of the very same nasty, this time under a Democrat. Worse for me was the reaction by many -- suddenly the nasty was OK when it was done by one of ours. What an eye opener that was.

For me, it was a lesson well learned.

As for "loyalty" to a person or Party, I gave the latter up a few weeks after the 2008 inauguration, and the former -- I can say there are very few individuals who can claim mine. My sole, unswerving loyalty will ALWAYS belong to consistent ideals. I am an unabashed LIBERAL, and I've finally started to vote like one; it has been freeing and brought me a peace I have rarely had in past votes.

[madfloridian]

40. And W got away with all of it, didn't he?

And that's a shame. Good to see you, too. Though I am getting more and more liberal, I still find it hard to vote other than Democratic when election time comes. Of course, in Florida I don't have many Democrats to choose from....only Bill Nelson. And I couldn't see Romney as a choice for president.

[cui bono]

145. Well said and I agree completely!

Keep up the good work.

[Curmudgeoness]

46. We should all realize that nothing gets accomplished if we don't push for it.

I agree with you. We have to hold every one of our politicians to their promises, to their platforms, and to what is good for the country. If that means that we sometimes are critical of a fellow Democrat, whether that is the President or any other representative of the people, then we still must speak out.

Thank you for saying it.

[madfloridian]

71. Thanks. It is just good common sense to do so.

[starroute]

50. What bothers me most is what it's doing to DU

I tend to be conflict-averse, so I stay out of forums where I can expect more heat than light. But a few days ago, I clicked on a post in the "Greatest" section without stopping to see its source. I found someone there claiming that the president lacks empathy and human feelings, so I jumped in to say that I believe Obama is a deeply empathetic man who happens to have reached maturity during the Reagan era and may unthinkingly accept some of the conventional wisdom of that period.

For that, I got a message in my inbox saying I had been banned from posting in the Barack Obama Forum and should contact the administrator if I thought a mistake had been made.

I had no interest in doing that. A forum that will ban you for defending the president with less than the requisite amount of enthusiasm is not a forum I want any part of. (Or if the problem was that the administrator hadn't read my post carefully enough to figure out what I was actually saying, I want no part of that, either.) But it does bother me to see even subsections of DU descending into that kind of high school rah-rah boosterism.

[madfloridian]

58. You made some very good points in that post.

I saw that post on the greatest list, and noticed that. A very good point:

"Obama is a deeply empathetic man who happens to have reached maturity during the Reagan era and may unthinkingly accept some of the conventional wisdom of that period. "

Couple of our kids are pretty near Obama's age, and they were stunned one day when I openly criticized Reagan's policies and how they impacted today. They had no idea of what he really did.

I told one of them about Reagan's calling for a bloodbath if the students didn't stop protesting. Then Kent state happened 4 days later, and he said he was joking.

[rhett o rick]

99. I accidently stepped into that group only to be banned immediately and had a post hidden

for nothing more than commenting on two terrible posts, both of which were subsequently hidden. However, one post was by a friend of the forum and that wasnt proper behavior. I said nothing at all about our President. The action taken in my opinion was purely vindictive.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1102&pid=6644

I dont mind being banned as it saves me the trouble of trashing the group. But hiding my post for saying nothing more serious than "you are an enabler", demonstrates that the self-righteous are trying to purge DU of those that dont conform to their ideology.

[L0oniX]

159. I believe certain forum moderators are abusive.

We IMO have gangs here that run in to pile on. Many don't contribute anything to discussion but rather defer to insulting remarks. On the other hand I have been seeing a lot of holier than thou alerts on petty crap where they just object to what's been said and would rather nanny alert than discuss. This is not the DU I sign on to. I'd rather have a ton a politically incorrectness and swearing than see this site go down the high school jock, click, bully, insult, blog nazi nanny put down rah rah path.

[liberal_at_heart]

177. there's a Barack Obama forum?

I can only imagine. I will definitely steer clear.

[rhett o rick]

202. It's pathetic and IMO not very Democratic. nm

[grantcart]

56. I am interested in seeing all of these requests for people to walk in lockstep.

I admit I don't have much time at DU, but still I think I should have found a few of these threads by now.

[LibertyBell7]

57. 2 Years to fix it?

I have no quibble with holding politicians to account, no matter their party affiliation; rather, I encourage it. However, when doing so, I feel it's best not to use right-wing talking points to further one's argument.

To wit, you say,

...in 2008 gave our party a majority to fix it. They had two years in which they could have turned around so many things, but they did not.

You see, the timing of that is a trifle off:

Two months and two days.

That's the time that the Democratic caucus had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. That's the day Scott Brown took Ted Kennedy's chair, leaving the Democratic caucus (I have to keep phrasing it that way because Bernie Sanders, who votes with the Democrats, is an "Independent" [Socialist]) with a total of 59 votes — and 5-6 of those were Blue Dog DINOs like Blanche Lincoln. Not reliable to bust filibusters, those DINOs.

Two months, two days. That's how much time they had to fix what had been @#$%&*d up by the Corporazis across 10 years — or 30 years, if you trace their damaging policies to their roots. I'm amazed they accomplished as much as they did.

Then there's this: Due to the aggressive redistricting resulting from the horror-show of the 2010 elections (when all but the hard-base of Democratic voters snoozed through election day Waiting For Superman to "fix it&quot , Democrats would likely have retaken the House this year. There's very much that needs to be fixed in that little dysfunction, and it will require local, district-by-district fixing to right that ship.

Paraphasing Thom Hartmann: Tag! We're it!

[truedelphi]

59. A decent rock anthem presented this theme:

Living Color: Cult of Personality:

I was recently investigating the life and times of Django Rheinhart and it was interesting to hear the mention in in the video on YouTube that contrary to what we are taught in Post World War II America, the Nazis didn't care to codify everything - they simply relied on peer pressure. So although Jazz music was frowned on, as being music of an inferior race, there were no laws per se against it. The Nazi government expected peer pressure to ensure that the "little people" made sure that their neighbors, friends and families complied with the standards the Regime depended on.

It's sounding more and more familiar, ain't it! Although in the Hitlerian Social Democracy of Germany in the 1930's, the middle class had expanded economic opportunities. Here that doesn't seem to be the case.

[CranialRectaLoopback]

63. You are absolutely judged on loyalty

I posted a negative comment about the President on a Presidential Worship group here on DU and was censured. I'm sure there are rules somewhere as to when you can speak ill of the President, but apparently not in that forum. I was deemed a troll and a retard. That's ok. I voted for Jill Stein because she was more a Democrat than the President. I guess that makes me a retarded troll. I am.

[liberal_at_heart]

66. they may try to shout us down and shut us up but like you

there are many of us liberals out there and we won't be silenced anymore. I have found my voice. My voice is for my son and no one, I mean no one will stop me from fighting for my son.

[DirkGently]

77. Aways the same transparent defensive reaction, too. Those who

need others to "shut up and support ___" know they are wrong. It's such a low, dumb, worthless tactic to try to shoo away criticism with hot air about group fealty.

And it doesn't work. Just the opposite, in fact. Nothing hardens criticism better than a ham-handed, dishonest attempt to stifle it without addressing the merits.

[madfloridian]

82. Agreed, but it sures makes a person think twice before posting.

I have several things I wanted to write about ed reform, but the posts get lost so fast there's no way to get the point across. And it sometimes just doesn't seem worthy it.

[Rex]

83. Not with me.

If I see some stink, it is not a rose.

[Skip Intro]

84. There is GREAT harm in DEMANDING people walk Lockstep

in intimidating those who dare to think for themselves with name-calling and threats.

That harm isn't only inflicted upon those who are the target of such ridicule and demand.

That harm is eventually inflicted upon those making such demands, and upon the party or organization or ideal or swooning fan club who makes those demands.

If you hold or support better ideas and better solutions, you don't need to demand others join you. You stand on the strength of those ideas and solutions, or what should be a record of results, if applicable.

Demanding lockstep behavior shows weakness and a betrayal of any honest and sincere cause.

For this type of intellectual poison to take hold of DU to the extent that it has should be a warning bell to what is still the majority here.

[madfloridian]

85. .....

Very good post. Thanks.

[SunSeeker]

135. Please show me a DU post "DEMANDING people walk Lockstep."

[Skip Intro]

180. Do you read DU?

[SunSeeker]

182. Yup. And I have yet to see an OP that says that.

Apparently you haven't seen one either or you would have provided a link.

[Skip Intro]

187. Then you haven't read much.

Off the top of my head, you've never seen anyone called gun nut or NRA troll for holding a view that doesn't mirror the "ban x, y and z" position?

If not, I doubt you really spend any real time here actually reading these boards.

Do this. Take a good long swim in the murky water of the Meta forum and note how many threads and posts you see that decry and call out specific posters or types of posters simply because they don't adhere to the strict and narrow definition of the attacking poster on what should and shouldn't allowable, as far as opinions held and shared here. You know, that whole lockstep thing.

[SunSeeker]

193. Link(s)? nt

[Octafish]

86. It's the weirdest thing, madfloridian.

I pulled the lever for the party that stood for doing something to make life better for ALL Americans and out popped more War Inc.

[madfloridian]

88. Octafish....like Alice in Wonderland I feel weirder and weirder

Hi, good to see you. I guess I'm too stubborn to just go away peacefully. Your kind words the other day to me meant so much.

[Octafish]

92. Good to see you, too! My sister teaches kindergarden. My two aunts are retired teachers.

My grandmother on my mom's side was a teacher. My grandfather on my dad's side was a teacher. Their devotion to their profession and to the students whose lives they changed for the better leave me in awe.

I learned early in life: An education is the only sure cure to poverty, and only the educated are free. And my grandfather taught me: "They can take the shirt off your back, but they can't take away what you know."

What we see in the modern USofA since November 22, 1963 is the intentional dumbing down of America. The demonization of public education is one important step in the BFEE plan to [s]bring back[/s] re-instiutionalize feudalism with themselves as lords of the manor.

That's why it means so much to see you on DU-3. The people need to learn what you know. As information, communication, and truth is the only thing between the BFEE and success.

[sabrina 1]

113. Very well said, Octafish. Especially this:

What we see in the modern USofA since November 22, 1963 is the intentional dumbing down of America. The demonization of public education is one important step in the BFEE plan to bring back re-instiutionalize feudalism with themselves as lords of the manor.

That's why it means so much to see you on DU-3. The people need to learn what you know.

I too am truly happy to see MF posting here again. The IQ level of the site went up immeasurably with her return. There are a few people still here who make DU worth visiting, MF is one of them and so are you.

I am hoping that more of the Progressive Dems who no longer post here, will also return as it was they who made this site worth visiting in the first place.

[madfloridian]

119. There are so many, Sabrina.

The ones who no longer post. I was looking back at the archives this week and saw name after name who are missed.

[Blue_In_AK]

90. Same as it ever was, Octafish.

Happy holidays anyway.

[Octafish]

91. Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukkah, Wondrous Kwanzaa, Happy New Year, Blue_In_AK!

And everything else that is holy and good and peaceful and happy to You and Yours!

[madfloridian]

96. Blue I think I told you happy holidays, but in case I didn't....

I do.

[Blue_In_AK]

102. Same to you, Madflo

May your 2013 be filled with little blessings amidst the chaos.

[madfloridian]

95. Right now Octafish, 14 people have me blocked and ignored.

Since I only really started posting here again much in late Nov. Dec....since I never attacked anyone....it must be because I am speaking out.

That must be a record I think. But then I was warned about how things would be if I came back.That's a shame.

[Blue_In_AK]

176. Hey, I've even picked up another one in the last month or so,

and I keep many, many of my true thoughts to myself. In the immortal words of Rick Nelson, "you can't please everyone, so you got to please yourself."

[madfloridian]

178. Garden Party...a big favorite. Video of him singing it.

Yeh, well I bet I beat you timewise in the short time I have been here.

Found a video.

That song was his eff you to the music world that was defining and rejecting him.

[Blue_In_AK]

179. I think the "eff you" is why I like that song so much

besides the fact that I was totally in love with Ricky Nelson when I was 13.

Thanks for the video. He was a handsome devil, wasn't he? I had good taste.

[Rex]

146. Big Brother is winning.

Found out that money trumps domestic tranquility.

[rhett o rick]

100. k&r

[Starry Messenger]

101. k&r

I've been too exhausted from work to comment much this year on anything. I post a few OP news stories with thing I think are important, but that's about it.

You have such a gift for synthesizing articles and blogging their connections, making clear a viewpoint and a theme. It really adds value to this forum. It is beyond terrific to have you back here. You are a progressive reporter par excellence.

[fascisthunter]

120. Glad you are Back! And well said...

...those who try to paint you as a troll or just some "whiner" just disagree with policy issues, but don't want to say as much, so instead they attack your credibility by questioning your intentions.

As any voter we need to hold our politicians to higher standards, and those who are not willing to engage you on policy issues need not be responded to. Its an old game that really has no constructive role in the democratic party. Just keep posting!

Many, many, most readers do not even post because of the attacks they see... I believe most responsible adults understand that criticism and concern about our politicians is essential and aduty as an American. This isn't about perception or an attack on a politician to bring him down.... this is about holding their feet to the fire. I see nothing detrimental about that.

[OnyxCollie]

122. Authoritarianism is not bound by party ID.

There's safety in numbers, and those who step outside the groupthink create a perception of a threat to safety. As such, they must be admonished to get back in line.

It's what those who lack information/intelligence, the ones who rely on "hope," do to quell their fears.

It's the same for every cult.

[WillyT]

123. HUGE K & R !!! - Thank You !!!

[haikugal]

124. Thank YOU for this post ++++++

Madfloridian you are one of my DU heroes!

[bigtree]

126. Clinton wasn't endorsing that sentiment, just stating what he saw as an unfortunate reality

"That old canard of Bill Clinton, that it is better to be "wrong and strong" than "weak and right" really took hold. And that was a shame. Being "wrong and strong" is dangerous indeed."

It wasn't an admonition to the party to be 'wrong and strong.' It was an admonition to be more forceful about the issues that Democrats advocate and represent. It was also part of his screed in the speech against the messaging of the republican party.


CLINTON: The agents of change lose when there's no dialogue. When people are screaming at each other and they're mad and they're scared, we lose. When people are talking and listening and thinking, we win.

When people feel uncertain, they'd rather have somebody that's strong and wrong than somebody who's weak and right.

[99Forever]

127. I do not now,...

.. nor have I ever, seen any use in being part of some cult idol worshiping idiocy, especially when it comes to politics. I vote policy, not "rock star" status. And if the ones I vote for, are doing shitty things, I'll scream my fucking head off till they stop or I'll work to get their worthless asses unemployed, if they don't. Don't like it? That's your problem, not mine.

[SunSeeker]

128. LIE: "...we in 2008 gave our party a majority to fix it. They had two years..."

Obama only had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate for 24 working days.
http://factleft.com/2012/01/31/the-myth-of-democratic-super-majority/

And yet, despite that, he managed to accomplish an amazing number of things. Of course he could not get everything done that we wanted, but he did the most important things: he got us out of Iraq, he repealed DADT, he saved the U.S. auto industry, and (most important to me personally) he passed healthcare reform that will give my brother health insurance coverage for the first time in his adult life.

You are welcome to criticize the President's policies, but not lie about him. When you lie, you lose credibility advocating issues that are important, like fighting privatization of schools. And you make Dem voters stay home, like they did in 2010. The red wave of 2010 accelerated the destruction of public schools tremendously.

[OnyxCollie]

130. Bush accomplished what he did without a filibuster-proof majority.

Why couldn't Obama?

[SunSeeker]

136. Dems under Bush didn't filibuster like the GOP does now--Dems believe in democracy.

Republicans filibustered everything and continue to do so, as you well know. The Dems only mistake was not changing the filibuster rules in January of 2009 when they started the new Congress. But no one imagined the GOP was going to filibuster everything. The GOP's filibusters over the last four years have been unprecedented.

[OnyxCollie]

138. How's that moral high ground working out for us citizens?

At least our team has kept its uniforms clean. Yay.

[SunSeeker]

166. What's your alternative to democracy?

I hope the Senate does follow through with strong filibuster reform. But with the House red, and looking like it is going to stay that with the 2010 gerrymandering, all we'd be doing is greasing the skids for the GOP agenda. So much for democracy, eh?

[OnyxCollie]

170. Dems believe in Kabuki theater.

Gullible people think it's democracy.

[SunSeeker]

181. So you're not a Dem? Why are you here? nt

[OnyxCollie]

186. Dem POLITICIANS believe in Kabuki theater,

which you (incorrectly) believe is democracy.

If I wasn't a Dem, what the fuck business is it of yours as to why I'm here?

Add "Hall Monitor" to "Authoritarian Follower" on your resume.

[SunSeeker]

188. LOL. If you believe all Dem politicians believe in Kabuki theater...

then I can see why you are such an unhappy Dem...if that is what you are. I ask you a simple question--what is your party affiliation--in a discussion board based on party affiliation and you call me childish names like "Hall Montior" and "Authoritarian Follower." Nice. Nope, you don't sound like a Dem.

[OnyxCollie]

190. Keep hoping for change! (Particularly when the game is rigged.)

It's the mark of the truly gullible.

[SunSeeker]

192. I don't just hope for change. I work at it.

I know some Dem politicians suck, but there are some true heroes among Dem office holders, and I am doing everything I can to get more of them in office. Comments like "all Dem politic ans believe in Kabuki theater" and your implication that anyone who supports a Dem politician is "gullible" does nothing but suppress Dem votes. No, gullible would be thinking that all naysayers such as yourself here on DU have Dems' best interests at heart.

[OnyxCollie]

204. Rah! Rah! Rah! Gooooooo team!

With your enthusiasm, you'll be head cheerleader in no time.

[SunSeeker]

205. I see juvenile namecalling is all you've got. nt

[OnyxCollie]

207. My response is appropriate

to your level of political analysis, i.e. that of a neophyte.

Here's something for you to mull over- Fox News attacks Democrats constantly, yet nine of the top ten recipients of News Corp campaign contributions are Democrats (with the Obama being the biggest recipient.) Why?

[SunSeeker]

208. Namecalling is not appropriate. Neither are lies.

Here's something for you to "mull over":

Sunlight Foundation Muddles Facts On "News Corp." Donations To Obama

How is it possible to claim, as a Sunlight Foundation report does, that the "biggest all-time recipient of contributions from News Corp is President Obama"? By treating the contributions of individual employees the same as corporate contributions, even though they're not.

The Sunlight Foundation forwards that confusion. After making the claim about Obama being "the biggest all-time recipient of contributions," it adds: "It should be noted that the totals for News Corp's contributions also include money from employees of the organization and their family members." But the private contributions employees make cannot be said to speak for the corporation they work for, and lumping them all together leads to false conclusions -- among them, that News Corp. made corporate contributions to Obama.

If it seems like Obama got a lot of money from News Corp. employees, that's because he got a lot of money from a lot of people in 2008.

...

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2011/07/20/sunlight-foundation-muddles-facts-on-news-corp/182602

[OnyxCollie]

211. Here's your "lies."

Since OpenSecrets isn't working, here's a jpg of a pdf:
[IMG][/IMG]

What does that say?

[SunSeeker]

212. Does that include contributions from News Corp. employees, as Media Matters points out?

Last edited Sun Dec 30, 2012, 04:41 PM - Edit history (1)

If Rupert Murdoch supports Dems, he sure has a funny way of showing it on Fox News.

[OnyxCollie]

213. Right, because employees of News Corp have no vested interest

in Obama. Just like Goldman Sachs employees had no vested interest in Obama when they were the second-largest contributor to Obama's 2008 campaign.

(Mortgage scandal? What mortgage scandal? The President said we shouldn't begrudge their wealth...)

BTW, is the DoJ going to investigate News Corp for phone hacking, or were the bribes, er, campaign contributions sufficient?

[madfloridian]

222. Great chart, here's more. Open Secrets is working.

I went to Open Secrets at Twitter.

https://twitter.com/OpenSecretsDC

Just a few links down I found this....Obama's largest donors.

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2012/12/lawyers-education-consistent-as-obamas-top-industries-wall-street-true-to-romney.html

[treestar]

142. +1

Further more,, 2 years is not that long in historical terms. So the punishment the progressives claim they laid on us in 2010 is still working and yet they are still making the same complaints.

[madfloridian]

158. Whoa there. I said "majority".

"we in 2008 gave our party a majority to fix it. They had two years in which they could have turned around so many things, but they did not. "

We did give them a majority, and though there was only a short term "supermajority".....there was still a majority.

You should be careful about using the word "lie". You used the words "filibuster-proof", not me.

[SunSeeker]

163. It was not a "majority" that allowed him to "fix" or get legislation through, and you know it.

Yet you say he had two years of such a majority and that is just not the case. So you should be careful about how you phrase things. It is a false right wing talking point that I am tired of hearing...and it has no business on DU.

[madfloridian]

165. It appears nothing has a place on DU

anymore.

You have twisted my words beyond recognition. I did not say he had that power. I never did.

""we in 2008 gave our party a majority to fix it. They had two years in which they could have turned around so many things, but they did not. "

Do you see the plural pronoun "they". It's there for a reason.

This is getting ridiculous. You guys want a pure clean board with no questioning.

[SunSeeker]

168. Oh please. NO ONE is saying they want "no questioning."

You were not questioning. You asserted a purported factual statement. You said there was "a majority" that could be used to "fix it." Those are your words, I am not twisting anything. Your assertion was false. So now you're parsing pronouns, but you cannot defend your assertion. You threw out a false right wing talking point, and on DU, you should expect to get called out on it.

[madfloridian]

172. NO, I did not do that. "parsing pronouns"???? Really.

That is what it has become. Nitpicking, baiting.

[SunSeeker]

184. Baiting is inserting the "he had 2 years and did nothing" RW meme into your OP.

And you hooked a few of us. Congrats.

[madfloridian]

189. What I wrote is there for all to see. They can decide. Not worth it.

I did not use the word "he". And yes for 10 plus years I have been into posting RW memes here, and trying to "hook" people.

What you are doing is really sad, because it is harming all of us.

It is impossible to post here without attacks like this, and it really is not worth it.

I suspect all is not as it seems, Sunseeker, so I will leave you to your games.

[SunSeeker]

194. Fighting school privatization is worth it. Hope you keep that up.

I understand your frustration. You've posted about the crime that is school privatization for years, and when your post is only about that, you maybe get a few K&R's and then crickets. It's not a hot button issue and the sad fact is most online boards, being heavily populated by young males, couldn't care less about the issue. I wish I could think of a way to make the issue catch fire, since I strongly share your concern. But attacking Obama/Dems/fellow DUers is counterproductive, although it did get your OP on the Greatest Threads board.

[liberal_at_heart]

173. any criticism is considered right wing talking points

How do you expect to fix any of our problems in this country if any kind of criticism is considered right wing talking points?

[SunSeeker]

183. Nope, just the false ones the RW uses, like the "he had 2 years and did nothing" meme.

That is the only thing I disagreed with in the rather lengthy OP. If you read my exchange with Madfloridian, you'd see I agree with the concern about the privatization of schools.

[madfloridian]

195. That's the problem. I can't post about education without criticizing Obama...

It is his policy. And I am bullied when I post about it.

The other day in one of the forums here I saw someone I respected being singled out for hate and bullying. It went on for days, and no one did anything about it. I wanted to cry for her it was so wrong.

That can happen to anyone now.

That is one way to keep away anyone who questions the president.

And the winners are....no one.

[SunSeeker]

196. I've never seen anyone here disagree with your position that school privatization is a bad idea.

I don't see anyone bullying you for disagreeing with Obama education policy. Bullying is against the TOS, deserving an alert. But calling out a lie or expressing disagreement on an anonymous discussion board is not bullying.

[liberal_at_heart]

197. People can't stand for someone to disagree with one of

Obama's appointment. Anytime anyone disagrees with one of Obama's choice for an appointment the poster gets bullied. Obama is like God. He doesn't make mistakes according to some on this board. Whether for education, Secretary of State, or Justice Department or any other appointment someone may disagree with. If Obama appointed them neither he nor they are capable of making mistakes.

[SunSeeker]

198. I haven't seen that.

There's been some pretty brutal (and often well-deserved) bashing of Obama appointments. No one here thinks Obama is God. No one here thinks Obama doesn't make mistakes. Geez, did you see this board after his first debate with Romney? However, as Dems we expect respect for our President ... i.e., for DUers not to lie about him. And that "he had two years and did nothing" meme is one of the most egregious.

[liberal_at_heart]

199. well I disagree and so do many others

Those of us who disagree will not be pushed around just because some think our disagreement is disrespectful. We don't think it is disrespectful to disagree with his appointments and we will continue to criticize his appointments until he changes them. I for one am in complete agreement with madfloridian that his appointment for education was the wrong pick and will criticize his pick until he changes it. I also don't like his appointment for Department of Justice. I think Eric Holder has not done enough to go after bankers and has done too much in regards to punishing medical marijuana patients.

[SunSeeker]

200. Fine. Disagreement is not disrespectful. Lies are. nt

[liberal_at_heart]

169. I'm really sorry your message for school reform gets nowhere even here

I feel your frustration. The democratic party is obviously not anywhere ready to address the problems with the educational system in this country. They may very well lose me because I'm not willing to sit silently while they play the denial game and say nothing is wrong. Too many students are suffering and too many democrats are saying nothing is wrong. I believe more than ever that both parties are broken. They are too busy trying to beat the other side and win to truly address the real problems. It's really sad.

[TheKentuckian]

206. The poster did not lie. They said majority and majority it was and generational high at that

[SunSeeker]

209. Yes it was a lie. It was not "a majority to fix it"--that would have required 60 votes.

President Obama only had the filibuster-proof 60-vote majority for 24 working days, not two years as the poster incorrectly states, falsely implying that Obama/the Democrats sat on their hands.

One of the standard Republican talking points is that the Democrats had a filibuster-proof, super majority for two years between 2008 and 2010. This talking point is usually trotted out when liberals complain that the Republicans filibustered virtually every piece of legislation proposed by Obama or the Democrats over that period of time. The implication is that Democrats had ample opportunity to pass legislation and that the reason they didn’t pass more legislation doesn’t have anything to do with the Republicans. The poster makes the same argument.

Not only did the Democrats have a super majority for only 24 days, but on top of that, the period of Super Majority was split into one 11-day period and one 13-day period. Given the glacial pace that business takes place in the Senate, this was way too little time for the Democrats pass any meaningful legislation, let alone get bills through committees and past all the obstructionistic tactics the Republicans were using to block legislation.

Further, these Super Majorities count Joe Lieberman as a Democrat even though he was by this time an Independent. Even though he was Liberal on some legislation, he was very conservative on other issues and opposed many of the key pieces of legislation the Democrats and Obama wanted to pass. For example, he was adamantly opposed to “Single Payer” health care and vowed to support a Republican Filibuster if it ever came to the floor.


The whole timeline and details are nicely laid out here:

http://factleft.com/2012/01/31/the-myth-of-democratic-super-majority/

[madfloridian]

210. There's something odd about your repeated use of the word "lie"

Tells me more is at play here than just making your point.

I never used the word supermajority, never meant it. That is what you decided I said.

It's odd.

[SunSeeker]

214. I just calls 'em as I sees 'em.

I must be up to something? It is "odd" to point out a lie?

Look, you're not denying you said there was "a majority to fix it." You can't. It's right there in your OP. Which you have yet to fix.

That "majority" the Dems/Obama had was not enough "to fix it." Hence, you lied. And you did it to imply the Dems/Obama sat on their hands or for God knows what reason. This lie is a straight-oughta-FoxNews talking point.

I agree with you on the privatization of education issue, but you ignored that. Instead, you want to just disparage my motives (like you do the Dems with your "majority to fix it" remark), saying I am "playing games" or "odd" or that there is "more at play here."

This is a discussion board. I am a progressive Democrat who is quite fond of the Democratic Party, not that I am blind to its warts. I come to this board to discuss issues--and yes, raise concerns--with like-minded Dems, since I got sick of arguing with lying RW trolls on HuffPo and elsewhere. Yet, I continue to see many of the same false RW talking points here.

[TheKentuckian]

224. You are the one stating a super majority, not the person you call a liar.

It was a majority and no amount of spin will change that reality.

[SunSeeker]

225. It was not "a majority" that allowed Dems to "fix" things; THAT was the lie.

The OP suggested Obama/the Dems had a "majority to fix it." The statement in the OP that is a lie is the following:
"...we in 2008 gave our party a majority to fix it. They had two years in which they could have turned around so many things, but they did not."

That is not true. A "majority to fix it" in this case would have a supermajority, not a simple majority. And as I noted to you up the thread, Dems had a supermajority in the Senate for only 24 days not 2 years, and on top of that, the period of supermajority was split into one 11-day period and one 13-day period. You appear to concede that point.

I am not calling any person a liar. I am just calling out a lie in an OP, a lie that has been spread by the right wing and even repeated on the left, as in this case, by well-meaning progressives. It's bs and I won't stand for it, even if it hurts someone's feelings.

It is ironic that my disagreement with a statement in the OP, an OP that laments the alleged "No disagreement accepted" attitude on DU, would be greeted by the OP poster and you with such tenacious opprobrium.

[hay rick]

131. So now you're trolling Obama Underground?

DU was close to useless as a discussion board during "campaign season." Some folks would like to make those changes permanent. They are much more comfortable with DINO Underground...where politicians with the magic "D" after their name never have feet of clay.

[gulliver]

132. Persuade with respect and no problem.

Anything you can get done with respect and logic is fair game of course. But unwavering support for an elected Democrat is non-optional for liberals. They represent us in the most legitimate and complete way possible, through democratic election. Attacking my Democratic leader with illogical, disrespectful, politically foolish screed is attacking me. I don't care how strongly someone feels about something, by the way. It doesn't justify political self-mutilation.

If you think Obama isn't doing the best he can on something you care about, then make the argument coolly and logically. If he doesn't do what you want, please have the decency to question your own ideas about the subject. That's what everyone with any intellectual honesty does.

[treestar]

140. Disagreement is accepted

But it is also allowed to disagree with the disagreement.

What about criticizing Republicans? And the people who elect them? Obama has to deal with the Republican House. Local elections interest Republicans and they get wins there - they at least seem to realize political power in the US is diffuse. Those who think the Presidency is to control everything else are being unrealistic and favoring a dictatorship that doesn't exist.

It's a waste of time to criticize the performance of a Democratic President in dealing with the powers that are not assigned to him under our system. We could have spent that time trying to get Democratic Congress, statehouses, and governorships (which would have avoided Republican gerrymandering to make it easier for them to get the House).

[LiberalLovinLug]

152. 3 Red Herrings in one post - must be a record

1. "What about criticizing Republicans?"

It is a given on this site that Republicans will be criticized. Any day on the Front Page there are numerous articles about the selfish, stupid, immoral behaviour of the GOP. The Toon posts are bursting with sarcastic observations on Republican behaviour.
The question is whether there is any room to criticize Democratic behaviour as well.

2. "Those who think the Presidency is to control everything else are being unrealistic and favoring a dictatorship that doesn't exist."

The question is whether we can criticize actions that the President CAN control. Like his starting bargaining positions, his appointments, or his public criticism, or lack thereof, of unsubstantiated GOP talking points.

3. "We could have spent that time trying to get...." I am sure many Democrats in those areas worked hard in a losing cause. Once again, the question is whether there is any room to criticize Democratic behaviour of those that WERE elected.

[hay rick]

160. +++

[treestar]

215. I don't think so

I seem to notice a lot more concentration on the things you mention than the Republicans (the only reason the President has to have bargaining positions in the first place) and ignoring their power, and ignoring leaving the lower levels and Congress alone in a lazy attempt to assign all power to one person. I don't see a lot of threads trashing Boner for even having his positions.

Why not criticize the system, which allows others to have power in it? It seems you'd prefer a system where once you elect the President, he has all the power and that's all you have to worry about.

Criticism of what the President "can control" is often unreasonable, and based on the idea that the Republicans have no power at all.

[madfloridian]

161. The DNC WAS working to get wins at local levels, but that was stopped at once in 2009.

Howard Dean's goal was to empower the local and state areas, fund them so they could grow, so we could have a farm team from which to choose candidates. When Dean was out of the country, Obama installed Tim Kaine as chair....and all the money from the 50 state strategy stopped.

Dean said we wouldn't win unless we won locally, but then he didn't have a voice in the party anymore.

BTW, it IS within Obama's power to stand up for public education. To stand up for seniors and the needy.

[treestar]

216. Wow that's giving all the power to Dean

Dean is gone, yet local Democrats could do nothing?

Why is the House even Republican? Because Republicans don't sit around waiting for a personality to blame or do all - they just do it.

We are self governing - we all have the power to do something.

[madfloridian]

221. Not what I meant at all.

Of course local Democrats can do a lot. The advantage was that we took both houses and the WH because of the enthusiasm and local involvement.

[rhett o rick]

164. If you think the President or any other Democrat is above criticism by Democrats

then you obviously dont understand Democrats. Criticism is part of freedom. And to insinuate that we dont criticize the Republicans is ludicrous.

[treestar]

217. I hardly see on DU as much criticism of Republicans

for even having their horrible, cruel, cold hearted positions on the issues. It's all the President and how the way he deals with them is wrong, often unreasonable, as if the President should pretend they don't exist.

[rhett o rick]

219. I see plenty of post critical of Boner,

the Tea Party, Cantor, Faux News, Mitch McConnell, Chris Cristie, etc.

But I didnt elect Republicans. I elected Democrats that I expect to represent me. Therefore, I continually lobby for those issues I want. If my Democratic representatives vote with the Republicans to continue the Patriot Act, domestic spying, indefinite detention, etc., then I am apt to be very critical.

[awoke_in_2003]

150. K&R...

We have become almost the echo chamber that freeperville is.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

153. Membership in a political party doesn't denote fealty or obedience to the party or its leaders.

"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever, in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else, where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent. If I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all." --Thomas Jefferson to Francis Hopkinson, 1789.

"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.

[judesedit]

154. Unfortunately,our educational system has been based on profits for a long time.Kochs donate & dictat

e what can and can't be taught. Wake up. Research "The Dumbing Down of America" and you will see just how long this plan has been in place. You are blaming Obama for trying to get the teachers motivated to teach. He's trying to give students breaks when it comes to paying their loans back, and there are other incentives out there to help students get their degrees, even when they can't afford it. Instead of criticizing, why don't you send your well-thought out business plan for keeping schools public. That is much more productive, don't you think?

[madfloridian]

155. I have been posting about damage done to public schools...

since 2009. Obama's plan via Arne Duncan is an increase in testing with tests made in proprietary ways by private companies. No one knows what the test items will be, and the scoring is done in secret ways as well....again by private companies making a profit from it.

Really, do you think teachers have been motivated the last 4 years? I don't. They have had job security taken away, they have had union contracts broken by education leaders in the guise of "reform".

They can now lose their jobs if the students don't score well, yet the parents and students are not held accountable at all.

Obama's call for more charter schools is taking money from public schools and giving it in many instances to private companies that are not held accountable.

From the tone of your post, I doubt anything I say will make a dent in your anger. So be it.

[madfloridian]

191. .....

Now the decision is it worth it to bother.

[great white snark]

223. 116 recs! That's like one rec for every straw man and false victimization claim.

The fear of dissent part is fucking hilarious. Really.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

226. K&R

[graham4anything]

227. How did those 3rd party ites who have reappeared voting for Nader in 2000 do for you in Florida?

because Nader being in the race in 2000 stopped 10 million people from feeling they needed to vote

It was only in seeing the results of 2012, 2008, 2004 that showed how few people voted in 2000 because of the lies of 3rd party ites

Thank God, never again will a 3rd party be important.
Thank God for that.

Ralph Nader's legacy is insuring no one will ever glance at a 3rd party run for president.

after ruining the democrats in 2000.

because we all know Al Gore would have nominated Samuel Alito and John Roberts.

and Nader was financed by Republicans and is mega rich whining.

sterling example of mankind he was. Then he sold out (his same type Ron Paul now makes $50,000 a speech.)

[patrice]

228. I feel insulted by what you assume is "devotion to one man".

I'm not sure what you're referring to, as far as whatever prompted this post, but from my perspective it appears that you are doing the same thing as whoever it is that you are complaining about, madfloridian.

I'm not saying that whatever you're talking about, whatever happened, isn't what you think it is, there are people like that around (and, especially on this board, they may or may not be authentically as they appear to portray themselves to you.)

I'd just like you to consider that not everyone is what you think we are.

Yes, there is a harm in asking people not to express their views and to as them to walk in lock step, whether that's a step that agrees with others or with you.

There ARE more than 2 ways to do anything. These characterizations that have to do with positive or negative personality cults, "loyalty to a political leader" or antipathy toward a political leader, are too limiting for some and issues are, of course, a different matter almost all together.