It is not Obama's Fault. It is Ours.

[riqster]

I see lots of people bellowing and blaming Obama for the current state of affairs, and I have this to say: Look in a mirror first.

Barack Obama had a majority in both houses of Congress for a few weeks, and if you'll bother to remember, a lot got done. Then he lost that majority, and things got done, albeit more slowly.

Then came 2010. Lots of Dems, Leftists, Progressives (pick your label) sat out the election: if they did vote, they were less active, and so we got our asses handed to us. Reep takeover. And since then, we have gotten f***-all.

What's that you say? "They only took over the House", you say? News flash, Bunkie: without the House's approval, legislation does. not. get. passed. The party who can stop things from happening is the party in control. And that party, because of Dem inaction, is the Republican party. They are in charge because they can stop any and every legislative action from being taken.

Again, the reason this has happened? It's not Obama's fault. It's ours.

Did you sit out the 2010 election? Bend over:

Did you persuade others to sit it out? Here's another one:

Are you currently trash-talking the Prexy and so giving him even less support than the poor schmuck already has? Yup, another one:

Do you plan on sitting it out in 2014 to "teach the man a lesson"? Here you go:

The only way we can get anything done is to elect more Dems. The more progressive the better, certainly, but the worst Dem is better than the best Reep. And if you don't vote for every fucking Dem you can at every opportunity:

Put the blame where it belongs. "We The People" are supposed to elect a government that represents us. We didn't. Now it's our job (not the Prexy's) to put things right.

Does that seem harsh to you? I'm being NICE here, folks. Here's what I wrote elsewhere: http://bluntandcranky.wordpress.com/2013/05/01/loony-lefties-need-to-pay-attention-to-the/

[bowens43]

1. Another obamapoligist

Obama gets the lion's share of the blame as he should. He's a weak leader

[phleshdef]

2. Ah, but you are such a STRONG keyboard warrior, right?

I'd like to see some of you in his position, you wouldn't last one fucking morning.

[riqster]

5. Another lazy "citizen".

Perfect example of what I said in my OP. Thanks for acting as an example.

[FiveGoodMen]

23. How, exactly, did bowens demonstrate that they are lazy?

That ad hominem came from absolutely nowhere.

Go tell your handlers that you're not getting anywhere infiltrating this site.

[riqster]

25. By ignoring the possibility of their own culpability and reflexively blaming Obama

(and attacking him using me as proxy), the poster proved my point.

[FiveGoodMen]

27. Ignoring is not the same as looking the situation over and making a determination

Your assumption is unwarranted.

[tblue]

54. I sat out nothing.

What is it you want? With all due respect, if you want to defend the President, then go right ahead. But you generalize about people you know nothing about, and you will win very few hearts and minds.

[Bake]

158. I voted. I encouraged others to vote. I was as active as I have ever been--more so.

So it's not my fault.

But you're damn right I'm disappointed in our corporate bought-and-paid-for President. I didn't expect perfection, oh no, far from it. But I expected more than this.

Now if you're saying it's my fault NOW becuase I now criticize the President I voted for twice and encouraged others to vote for and took others to the polls to vote for, that essentially I should just "shut up and sing," then you are wrong.

I'm a citizen (and no quotation marks around that word).

Bake

[riqster]

159. Nope, I think you are a model citizen

And I wish everyone were like you.

HELLZ YEAH, speak up and speak your mind. That is our right and our obligation.

My OP specifically called out non-involvement and destructive behavior.None of which applies to you.

[Bake]

160. Thanks. Just checking ...

Sometimes anyone who dares criticize the Prez is targeted -- not necessarily by you.



Bake

[riqster]

161. No worries mate

[upsidedownforklift]

74. Really?

But what would the people do without him?

[BlueCaliDem]

78. Another ObamaHater.

If you knew anything about our government, you'd understand exactly what the OP is saying. Apparently, you've fallen for the Duhbya and Dick omnipotent Executive bullshit and think President Obama is actually Dictator Obama.

[Dawgs]

104. Really? It's our fault that he put Chained CPI on the table?

It's our fault that he continues drone strikes that kill innocent people.

It's our fault that he continues to put republicans, lobbyists, and wall street in his cabinet?

Do I need to continue?

None of the things I've mentioned have anything to do with 2010 and how the GOP is obstructing Obama.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

129. Until now, I thought that they said it was all the Republicans' fault. Now it's our fault?

[creon]

123. No

The Executive does not enact legislation.

That is the responsibility of Congress.

Obama is not papa lord god and master of all he surveys. Go to talk to Congress.

[Whisp]

135. bollocks.

and it stinks.

[leveymg]

3. Classic Blame the "Fucking Retards" Post.

Is that you, Mr. Mayor?

[jazzimov]

154. And yet another one gets the quote wrong.

Rahm NEVER called Progressives "fucking retarded". Do some research and find out what REALLY happened.

[leveymg]

155. So, what REALLY happened?

Were you there? And what's interesting about this brief post on a thread that's long gone cold?

[phleshdef]

4. This kind of common sense is too much for the DU keyboard warrior brigade.

[Skittles]

7. I'm just curious but

how do you KNOW the level of activism of any "keyboard warrior"??? Please do tell.

[phleshdef]

8. I know if the shit spewing, unreasonable, Obama hating attitude in a lot of posts are an indication

...then the level must be pretty damn low for the most part. It certainly doesn't say much about the quality of the activist and their empathy and understanding for the difficulties of governing in this environment, with probably the worst, most uncooperative House we've had in ages, if not ever.

Activism is great. But if your opinion on one person's leadership is based on premises that completely ignore the reality of the current political climate, then that opinion isn't worth anything. We don't need activism from people like that.

[Skittles]

9. so....you DON'T KNOW

[phleshdef]

10. No one does. What does it matter?

Would you like to ask another dumb fucking rhetorical question or would you care to make an actual point that has some meat behind it?

[Skittles]

11. it MATTERS

and no, I would not EVEN bother wasting my time engaging YOU

[phleshdef]

13. Well, at least YOU bothered wasting time with your SHIFT key. It ADDS SO MUCH TO YOUR ARGUMENT!

What a lovely little line.

"Look at ME! I'm an "ACTIVIST"! I can say whatever bad shit I want about President Obama because I make signs and shit!"

[dionysus]

35. something wrong with your caps lock?

[riqster]

14. Nor can anyone judge the level of anyone's activism based on their posting habits

My point was that we all need to take responsibility for ourselves and our country, and not sit back and blast scapegoats. And if people are crapping on the Prexy for not having magical superpowers to overcome the Reeps that we allowed to take control of the government, I'd say that is a good indicator that they fit the profile depicted in the OP.

And "Keyboard Warrior" is, to my mind, a very gentle term for such individuals.

[Phlem]

131. Wow

Everybody stand back, he's got this!



-p

[freshwest]

18. But they've got a lot invested in those strokes, mind you!

[BlueCaliDem]

100. Heh . . . ;-) eom

[geckosfeet]

12. I'll be nice too. Bullshit.

[riqster]

15. So, you don't think the loss of Dem majorities is the causal agent

...for our current cluster-fuck?

What, then, do you see as the cause?

[FiveGoodMen]

22. Corrupt politicians who tell us what we want to hear

but have no intention of following up on it.

Shame on you for diverting blame from those who actually deserve it.

[riqster]

26. Shame on those who do not do their civic duty.

Those politicos get elected by us.

[FiveGoodMen]

28. I did my duty

You're casting blame just because it feels good.

There are no facts behind your personal attacks.

[riqster]

41. Yes, there are.

Last edited Thu May 2, 2013, 07:59 AM - Edit history (1)

Fact: during the first months of Obama's first term, he advanced a serious progressive agenda.

Fact: shortly thereafter, the slim House majority was gone. He moved to the center and still gave us more than any president since Carter.

Fact: because so many Dems sat out 2010, the Reeps took the House.

Got it? Because WE LOST THE HOUSE, Obama had no support from Congress.

It is not enough to elect a President. We need legislators, too.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

111. YOU SAID IT!!!

[Phlem]

132. Are you fucking kidding me?

We did our work getting BO in office and supporting him. We showed him that same support when he decided to throw SS under the bus for deficit negotiations. You are beyond ridiculous If Obama can't get them in line how am I/we supposed to do that. Let's see, a recent vote on gun regulation pretty much says it all when 91% of the public support it yet it goes down in flames.

WTF

you have a magic lamp or something?

jeebus.




We all thought Obama might be a game changer but no, He's like any other filthy politician out there. And please don't tell me to vote Hillary. Some genius pointed out that she has no skeleton's in her closet. Really?!?!


-p

[riqster]

134. And if you voted and worked in 2010, and plan to in the future, that's awesome.

My OP calls out those who decided to lay down and quit instead of doing their jobs as citizens.

There are a goodly number of people who have once again decided that they don't have to work anymore, that Obama is supposed to use his Big Magical Ears (or something) to fix all the s*** that went to hell when lots of Dems got all pissy, slacked off, went off and had a tantrum, and by so doing let the Reeps take over the house in 2010. I am calling BS on that.

And no, not kidding a bit.

[Phlem]

137. Dude.

This is politics, anyone who thinks there's time to slack is either naive or new to it.

Especially now that money flows like the fucking Amazon into our government.

Obama's done a lot that's true, but there are some things he just needs to not do by his own admission. Drone's, the Safety Net, locking up whistle blowers, etc... no one has him in an arm lock on these issues. He just needs to not do it period. Yet he dose.

-p

[riqster]

138. Yeah, but it's not just Obama

As I said in the OP, a lot of the problem is Congress: the big problem in 2010 was the rightward lurch of the House (and to a lesser extent, the Senate), and that was enabled by the Left slacking off.

When we have more progressive legislators, then either A: Obama doesn't have to move to the right to get compromise, or B: the majority tells him to shove those ideas where the sun don't shine. Either way, we can't take days off. We have to push for elected representatives that truly represent us.

The Prexy is one man. Congress can kick the Executive Branch's ass 9 falls out of 10.

That is why we have to vote, GOTV, inform, educate and agitate. Every day, every election.

[freshwest]

16. Good ol' Blunt and Cranky gives a Reality Check.

[rhett o rick]

17. Yes you are right. We elected him thinking he could do something. But apparently he cant.

With a lot of "it's not his fault" reasons. And we elected him. I agree with you, we are ultimately responsible.

[Enrique]

19. yeah a lot got done like extending the Bush tax cuts

and implementing the Heritage Foundation's health plan.

[Iggo]

20. Why did you sit out the 2010 midterms, then?

That sucks if that's what you did.

[FiveGoodMen]

21. Speak for yourself

I payed attention.

I voted.

I told anyone who would listen what's been going on.

But my elected representatives are not representing me.

It is not even 0.000001% my fault.

If you want the blame, you take it.

I say that those who campaign as though they're on our side and then rule on behalf of the 1% are the guilty ones.

[BlueCaliDem]

77. Why the hell do you feel as if the OP is directed at you?

If the shoe doesn't fit, forget about it. You voted. You were active to get Democrats elected {I'm assuming you voted for Democrats with the "I voted" response}. So the OP is clearly not directed at you. What's your problem?

[Fearless]

24. You don't know me or a vast majority of the people you're stereotyping

Therefore your argument is invalid.

[progressoid]

29. Fuck this.

Loony Lefties?

[MNBrewer]

30. Screw that

I voted for all the Democrats who were on the ballot for Federal office, and I was very disappointed in Obama's performance in his first 2 years.

[caseymoz]

31. Without any hindrance from Congress, this is what he did.

-He lied about having the most open administration ever.

-His justice department continued with Bush's cases to keep and extend secrecy in the executive branch.

-He ordered assassinations overseas, including of American citizens. (Just to clarify, this is commonly called murder.)

-He's pursued and prosecuted whistle blowers with unprecedented harshness.

-He voted while running for president to put Telcos out of reach of prosecution and civil suits for eavesdropping.

-He refused to prosecute Bush, Cheney and the rest of that criminal cabal who lied to put us into two wars and tortured people.

-He wouldn't prosecute Wall Street thieves, and instead accepted their campaign money and put their people in charge of the Treasury.

-His Education Secretary has pushed forward a disastrous and quite Republican education reform policy.

And no, he didn't get a lot done before Democrats lost their super-majority, at least not much that needed the help of Congress.

You have it wrong. Here's what happened: Obama screwed his party in 2010. After the enthusiasm in 2008, it took an awful lot to alienate people so much. You ought to ask yourself if he's not playing chess against us instead of the Republicans. I mean if he's that good a 10-dimensional manipulator, how can he resist manipulating people who want to believe in him? He could probably do it with eight dimensions tied behind his back.

I will admit, though, he seemed to really want to close Guantanamo. He did get blocked on that. Maybe now that there's a human rights catastrophe he'll be willing and able to stand up to Congress about it.

[MotherPetrie]

38. +1 Pluse, he OFFERED the Repugs Chained CPI.

[caseymoz]

83. That was second term.

The discussion was on how liberals "betrayed" the Democratic Party in 2010.

Not only that, compared to the other stuff I listed, Chained CPI is almost liberal.

[MotherPetrie]

89. Chained CPI is NOT "almost liberal." It's as anti-liberal as it gets.

[caseymoz]

93. Not more liberal than murder?

Not more liberal than loss of basic liberties like the 4th Amendment? Not more liberal than being in solitary for 10 months without trial? Not more liberal than having banks steal trillions of dollars and get away scot-free? Not more liberal than wholesale spying on Americans?

You miss my irony. Chaines CPI doesn't even belong on the same graph as any of those. Perhaps I should have said Chained CPI isn't as bad as any of those. Not that it should be necessary to choose one or the other . . .

[tblue]

57. Haven't you read?

It's all your fault and mine and everybody on the Bad Dem List. I love waking up in the morning and remembering that absolutely everything is in my power and is my fault.

[winter is coming]

107. +1. IMO, we lost 2010 when the decision not to rescind and/or prosecute the excesses

of the Bush administration was made. A lot of new voters turned out in 2008 because they hoped Obama would be different and would strive to undo the Bush years. When that turned out not to be the case, they tuned out.

[A Simple Game]

32. Darn right we are at fault, me, you everyone that voted for the wrong candidate in

the 2008 primary, well you, I didn't vote for President Obama in the primary.

Now because of you the rest of us are stuck with someone that wants to cut our Social Security.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

53. Yeah because Hillary is SOOOO liberal. Mrs. DLC, former Barry Goldwater gal? No thank you!

I'm sticking with the president here. Get over 2008. She lost. He won, fair and square.

[A Simple Game]

62. I didn't want Hillary or President Obama, with very little study

it was easy to see you were just voting for a Republican. Then again I'm old enough to remember what a Democrat used to stand for.

[BlueCaliDem]

87. Don't tell me. You voted for

that "liberal" anti-choice, Ron Paul friendly, Dennis Kucinich?

[A Simple Game]

97. I didn't vote for Kuchinch, when I got the chance I voted for President Obama.

Note the "I'm old enough to remember what a Democrat used to stand for."

I no longer belong to an organization that doesn't have the same goals as I do.

I quit supporting Republican Lite over 20 years ago. You can support whomever you wish.

I had little choice but to vote for President Obama, both times, but I haven't voted for a candidate on a major party line in at least 20 years. Neither party as a whole is worthy my vote.

[BlueCaliDem]

99. Well, I voted straight Democratic ticket

even in the primaries. I was referring to the primaries when I mentioned DK because you wrote:

I didn't want Hillary or President Obama, with very little study it was easy to see you were just voting for a Republican.

I will continue to vote straight Democratic ticket because I know elections aren't about me, me, me. It's about those whose right to vote was stolen from them because they were locked up and served their time, but still aren't allowed to vote. I vote because I want to help give voice to the poor and homeless who can't vote because they're either too burdened to care or don't have a home address, yet still need social services. I vote straight Democratic ticket because my goal is to boot the Republicans out of power, which helped California come back from a $27B dollar hole in our budget to projecting a $1 billion dollar surplus in 2014.

But if I want to see it selfishly, you're correct. Neither party as a whole is worth my vote, either. But I would expand it to say, NO political party, Green, Constitutional, Republican, Democratic, or any other is worth my vote because they ALL have flaws and ideals I don't stand behind 100%.

So I go with the party that's closest to my ideals, but what I know will help those in our society who need help the most.

[A Simple Game]

106. So what would you have us do when both parties think air traffic is more important than

meals on wheels? Both want to cut Social Security? Etc., Etc.?

Either way the middle class is going over the cliff, the Republicans want to go 60mph and the Democrats want to go 30mph, does it really matter who is driving the bus?

[Jamaal510]

118. +1

[Demeter]

33. Famous last words: An American President

Sydney Ellen Wade: Mr. President, you've got bigger problems than losing me. You just lost my vote.

[obxhead]

34. Dems, Leftists, and Progressives went to the polls in 2010.

It was the first time voters that skipped the midterms for the most part.

I will continue to blame Obama. I fought for him so he could FIGHT for us.

The TV is a wonderful magic box. People say shit on it and people watching it believe it. Obama could use the power of the magoc box to explain to the people what's happening in DC and who is stopping all the wonderful things he "wants" from happening.

Instead he just does as he does. Says we need to work together blah blah.

Fuck this "it's our fault" shit.

That's what it is, shit.

[Nay]

84. Yes, it was the first-time voters who didn't show up in 2010. And, remember, a lower

turnout always happens in mid-term elections, and is expected. It wasn't like a bunch of us just decided to go to Europe that week or something. For me, it demonstrated how razor-thin the margin is for getting Democrats in office anywhere in the country.

And I agree, OBX, that Obama, as soon as he found out the pubs would never deal rationally with him, should have started going after them hammer and tong. And there's NO excuse for the drone assassinations, etc.

[scarletwoman]

36. Great, this shit again.

Then came 2010. Lots of Dems, Leftists, Progressives (pick your label) sat out the election...

No, they didn't. "Independents", the mushy middle, the casual sometime-voters who only can be bothered to vote when it's something sexy like a presidential election with a rock star candidate - THOSE are the folks who sat out the 2010 election.

And ignorant, low-information voters who were easily seduced by Tea Party demagoguery thundered to the polls in droves to vote for Republicans - especially Tea Party candidates.

So, no. When I look in the mirror I'm fine with what I see - provided, of course, that there isn't some asshole jerk standing behind me with a fucking paddle.

sw

[AverageJoe90]

45. I kinda thought so, too, at first.

But then again, I didn't know quite as much about political reality as I do now. Sure, some Indies did sit out......but so did quite a few disaffected Democrats as well, especially some of the Progressive sector, sad to say(not all, though. Usually, the ones defending Obama are the ones who actually bothered to vote in '10.).

And judging by a lot of the attitudes I'm seeing on DU we may be at risk for repeating our 2010 mistakes in 2014. We can't afford that.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

112. NO!! A lot of Democrats sat out!! Until you can explain to me why Russ Feingold lost, you have no

argument! The bottom line is that too many of us sat out and we got this batshit crazy, Teabag Congress. That is NOT Obama's fault. It's simply not!!

[truebluegreen]

40. WTF?

Suuuure, being black has always been a HUGH electoral advantage in this country.

But your concern for the integrity of our voters is noted.

[AtomicKitten]

51. Geraldine? Is that you?

"If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept."

[freshwest]

101. Brilliant, thanks. I miss Keith.

[AtomicKitten]

109. Me too.

I miss Keith too. He was always so brilliant in addressing this kind of ugliness. Stuff quite frankly I find unforgivable, still.

[freshwest]

110. Also. There was a humanity and the ability to express it with conviction, not get caught up. That's

why they had to let him go. He made sense and Democrats felt strong and supported. That's forbidden on M$M.

[MotherPetrie]

39. I blame myself for falling for his bullshit twice

[tblue]

56. I blame myself for reading it.

I love waking up in the morning and remembering that absolutely everything is in my power and is my fault.

[rug]

42. I went to your link and found this.

Loony Lefties Need to Recognize Reality and Remember Historical Facts

The first two words was all I needed to read.

[Bluenorthwest]

43. When I read centrist garbage like this, I always wonder what State the centrist lives in and why

they so deeply fucked up 2010. We on the entire West Coast had great turn out and great results. The OP here suggests that he did not vote at all in 2010 which is not a surprise because the Blue Doggy Dogs and Centrists lost in droves in 2010 because they are shitty officials and shitty candidates, often arrogant jerks and insipid wind checkers who lose elections because they are unappealing to voters. When a candidate loses, it is the candidate's fault. Period. Blaming the voters is like blaming the audience when your act bombs. It's your act Senator Centrist, when it fails it fails because of you.
Of course this OP will never, ever address what went so wrong in his State and the others who botched 2010 so badly. Because what went wrong was centrism itself.

[riqster]

47. No, I voted in 2010. In fact, I have never missed an election.

And I busted ass in 2010, too: GOTV, election integrity, outreach, the whole nine yards.

And I dealt with the assholes who, from their Thrones Of Superior Leftness, told those of us that were working to elect Dems at all levels of government that they were not impressed and would sit it out.

Quite a few of them, and yes, some fair few here on DU. So my anger is justified. And my point is based on evidence and personal experience.

[Bluenorthwest]

52. So you and your local Party and candidates failed to organize a winning election. Why do you think

that is? You again don't mention what State you live in, of course, nor do you offer any of the evidence you claim justifies your frothy blaming of others for the failure your local Party produced. No such problem around here, no Blue Doggy Dogs around here either. Big turn out. An entire region.
The losses were almost entirely by 'moderates' and 'centrists' who were rejected while more liberal Democrats largely won election and reelection. The States that lost are the ones who are still insisting that the only candidates who can win are the ones who keep losing.
It boils down to this: if you want centrist candidates, get them the fuck elected.
These turn out and loss issues are endemic to the States and districts that are frozen in thrall of conservative, unimaginative machine candidates.
Characterizations and sermonettes against the sins of others won't win your elections. Fucking the House in order to keep running losing moderates is getting old as shit.
To me the most telling thing about your post is that when directly asked what State you speak of in your evidence free diatribe you simply refuse to say. This lets me know that the actual statistics from your State would probably contraindicate everything you claim. Most of the losses in our Party were by 'moderates' and most of the wins were by liberals. They fail to win because the centrism is the problem, it leaves them out of focus and bland and the voters don't like them. So they lose. Their boosters are not really excited about them, they pick candidates using rulers and string to mark distance from right to left, so they are not passionate and that shows strongly in the campaigning. The petulant nature of their reaction to loss is always to cast blame, never to seek a more excellent skill set and victory on the morrow, no they pile on like Pat Robertson explaining why a hurricane happened.
Americans will always reject a political movement that refuses accountability and seeks only to assign blame for their own failures. I recommend committed centrists find another tune to dance to.

[progressoid]

59. ...

[riqster]

64. My, how comfy it must be to be in a blue state.

As it happens, I live in Ohio, and it is a purple state. And this illuminates a point that is well worth drawing out: indeed, your post, in a way, proves my OP.

A purple state, you see, is not composed of two types of people (liberals and those who could be talked into becoming so): rather, it is a diverse environment with many types of people with sincerely held diverse beliefs. Beliefs that, in the main, I find to be complete codswallop, but they hold them as sincerely as do you or I.
The notion that any viewpoint can somehow take over most or all of these people and bring them back to the good side of the force is naive, and self-destructive into the bargain.

Self-destructive because it is based on an invalid assumption. People with deeply-held beliefs are not guaranteed to change them if we just come up with the right sales pitch, slap their backs, buy them a drink or so on. They are not likely to agree with us at the ballot box, so we must outvote them. And outvoting requires numbers. And every person who doesn't vote for us makes it harder to win the majorities we require to effect change.

Take this scenario, now, and apply it it to Obama and his many detractors on the Left. Given the reality of Reep opposition, one cannot expect him to accomplish f***-all without Dem majorities in both houses of Congress. But people do expect him to, in spite of the manifest evidence that the Reeps are determined not to work with the man. He tried working from his natural center-left position, and until we lost the House had some success. After we lost the House, he has been all over the map, and has accomplished far less than we hoped.

No one man can magically persuade others to agree with him: political progress requires a certain critical mass, and we did not create that critical mass in the House.

Oh, I was not "refusing" to answer each and every point or question raised. Some to me seem like distractions from my OP, some I did not have time for, and some I'll answer on other threads, time permitting.

[Bluenorthwest]

70. Ah Ohio. Great election laws you guys put in place there! No wonder you keep losing and are now at

the point where all you can do is wail and accuse and point fingers. Your State has election issues that you need to address long before you get to the sermon about the failure of those unlike yourself. You also have candidate issues, because good candidates make for good turn out, and you keep complaining about your turn out.
Note that you characterize, finger point, name call and yet you never, ever ask what you might learn from those States that do better.
In life, it is always stupid to take advice from those who fail to deliver the goods, it is always wise to ask those who succeed how they did it. But you don't ask, you just preach about how 'those people' did not follow your will.
A candidate who loses failed to win. It is their fault, not the voters fault. Start there and you might find some wisdom.
If you can not get your candidates elected, that's all about you and those candidates. If your electorate keeps rejecting the Blue Doggies and centrists, why keep running such candidates? If you are really so passionate about those candidates, why do you think that passion fails to connect to enough voters? Is it possible that the surly attitude, the name calling, the blame for all others might be off putting? You type up shitty things about your fellow voters and then say 'why won't they play with me Mommy?' No one shows up to volunteer with surly,sneering right leaning preacher types. No one listens to those who speak with authority not given them, who preach from platforms built of adjectives and complaints about others.
States like yours have years of groundwork to do, but you refuse because you'd rather stink up the room with claims that voters should have voted for candidates YOU liked even if the voter hated them, and here you are claiming that only the sort of candidates who you fail to elect could ever be elected. 'We HAVE to run Blue Dogs, only they can win although they never do.'

Your OP goes on and on about it being 'our fault' so of course it is valid to point out that the entire West Coast and much of the rest of the nation did not stagnate, did elect Democrats Not Blue Doggy Dogs and the Dog Pound, actual Democrats. The kind who win, not like yours, who lose.
If you want to elect Blue Dogs and Centrists, you have to do just that. Elect them If you can not, then all the off gassing about why others should vote as you do is without merit or purpose.
If you can't win an election, do not try to tell those who do how they should be more like you. Or if you do, understand the laughter in your face that follows.

[Yavin4]

44. Good Post, But You're Wasting Your Time

We're 4.5 years into this presidency, and there are still folks that believe that all Obama has to do is make a speech on TV and Congress will do whatever he wants.

[riqster]

48. "My occupational therapist told me to specialize in lost causes"

(Roger Zelazny)

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

113. Exactly!! It doesn't work like that. I live in this city. I work in this city. It simply doesn't

work like that!

[AverageJoe90]

46. Spoken truth to power, my friend.

Unfortunately, while it cannot be denied that plenty of Independents did indeed stay home in 2010.....so, sadly, did quite a few on our side, as well, especially some from certain factions of the Progressive Sector(certainly not all, though: the Progressives who are more supportive of BO are usually the ones who worked the hardest in 2010).

And yes, it is indeed true that FDR had filibuster-proof majorities, because people worked to make that happen.

We can recover from 2010, but we need to keep working for that goal, even if it means having to push aside the super-critics.

[riqster]

49. Thanks, and well said.

We do what we can.

[BlueCaliDem]

92. Judging by the many passionate responses by those

Liberal Independents {fickle Democratic voters} who hate this president but who had voted for him in 2008, I believe their expectations of him were unrealistically high, even a bit racist - even if they don't know they were.

First off, the caricatures of Obama {smooth Denzel Washington-type of Black man} had thrown them off. When he didn't stroll into the WH with black shades and slapped Congress upside the head or popped a cap in their asses when they gave him lip, but instead decided to work with our Congresscritters {hence the "weak" label} who didn't want him as their president - on both sides of the aisle - he had disappointed a lot of those voters and pissed them off, so they stayed home in 2010.

The Republicans reaped the benefits, just as they had when those same Liberal Independents decided to cast their vote for the GOP-funded Nader in 2000.

We can't make that mistake a third time. California is a good example to follow. We have our share of moderate-to-conservative Dems, too, but we knew we needed super-majorities in our Legislature to neuter obstructionist Republicans in our legislature in order to help Gov.Brown (moderate Dem) pull our state out of the $27B dollar {hell}hole Bush's buddies at Enron and Duke Energy {2000-2001 energy manipulation that turned an eight billion dollar surplus into a twenty-five billion dollar deficit within months} and the Bush family friend, Schwarzenegger, had left us in.

[They_Live]

50. Where do you figure Citizen's United fits in?

That decision came about in January of 2010.

[Zoeisright]

55. Citizens United was still law

in 2012, and Democrats still won; every repuke backed by the Koch brothers lost. The OP is absolutely right. Lazy and petulant people on the left who refused to vote because they didn't get every fucking thing they wanted caused the debacle of 2010. Repukes then gerrymandered the hell out of precincts, and in 2012 it took 2-1/2 votes for Democrats to win, opposed to 1 vote for repukes.

Thanks a fucking lot.

[Bluenorthwest]

58. In 2010 Oregon had the largest midterm turnout since at least the 80's

Entire West Coast did just fine. Why did your State fail when we did so well?

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

114. No it didn't! Russ Feingold lost!! You still can't explain that. And I won't back down.

[They_Live]

75. Don't thank me.

I vote every time. I make phone calls, write letters, sign petitions (every day), and yet, the majority of my party seems to be serving the interests and whims of corporations and their profits, rather than helping families and individuals survive. My point about Citizens United was that it is one more obstacle to the interests of the worker/consumer populace receiving attention from its Congressional and Presidential representation. Our Government and its army and laws serve the highest bidder from a small group of wealthy individuals. We will not have a Government for the People until private money is removed from our electoral process.

[Maven]

60. too bad whenever there's been an important Dem primary during his presidency

Obama has unerringly supported the more conservative candidate instead of the more progressive challenger. But I guess that's "our" fault too, huh?

Do us a favor and stow your obsequious bullshit lecture. We're all stocked up. Thanks!

[Nay]

88. In Virginia's case, the Dem who ran against that rat Eric Cantor won 40 PERCENT of the vote

in the district (my district) with absolutely NO help from any national Democratic apparatuses. He was polling well, the Dems had a great chance to oust a real boil on our butts, and Powell STILL got 40% of the vote, spending $145,000 of his own money and with no money from Washington! Why was Powell not helped with a million bucks? He would have won. Cantor spent $2.5 million, for God's sake. Why aren't Dem candidates supported at the state level? How do we make that happen? I know Powell applied for funds; he was just ignored, I guess.

IMHO, even if the national party thinks a Dem candidate has no chance of winning, it should still financially support that Dem, in the realization that, soon enough, a Dem who does have a chance will step up and run, knowing that the national party will provide support. For some reason, they won't support a dem candidate even if the guy is polling 40% against someone like Cantor! I will never understand that, nor will I ever forgive it.

[MisterP]

116. and that's actually exactly why the Loyalty Day Brigade is so big on "you have to support the Dems"

'cos their Beatrice is very busy doing the opposite

just like when they accused "Naderites" of 1937-style purges since '06--while their bosses/boycrushes gerrymander and directly purge what Dems to the left of Franco they can

[grahamhgreen]

61. Another blame the victim post. Nice.

[Sunlei]

63. I don't want to wait till 2014, sure I'll vote! Pres. O needs to blAST THEM W/ all these top issues

DAILY. Make them stand in front of the American people.

[riqster]

65. Agreed, I think the man has been waaaay too nice.

And he should (in my opinion) be more consistently progressive and confrontational, since being nice to the Reeps has not worked well.

But without a majority in both houses of Congress, I don't see Obama's tone or position on the left/right axis nattering much.

[Sunlei]

66. He can be civil and nice. but I think its the daily blast by NAME that will shame congress to act

Don't let them hide behind each other as group of republicans/democrats, use their name and let each explain their action or inaction to Americans.

[riqster]

68. I agree in principle

And as a registered Independent, I certainly agree with individualizing such call-outs. But I have come to see that nothing Obama says or does will ever motivate Reeps to work with him.

The nation, as President Washington predicted, has been effectively overthrown by the political parties. And it is by those parties that we must effect change.

So we need more Dems in DC to support and positively influence the Prexy. And to get that, we gotta vote.

[Sunlei]

69. I changed to Independent also. Sure nothing the President asks for will ever be done by Republicans.

But that inaction needs to be reported to the American people. And not as a group of Republicans, by their individual names.

Let the American people focus on that specific obstructer and rake them over the coals.

Even if they do something as lame as when Boehner would not return the presidents phone calls.

President should have called Boehner out over that stupidness on an hourly basis if necessary. Call a press conference, press is there all the time, use them. Lets bring this crap to the American public.

[Bluenorthwest]

72. Wow, 'I am not a Democrat, I come to preach about how bad Democrats are'.

So your candidates in Ohio impress you so much that you remain independent but do not run an independent candidate.
You keep the candidate and Party at arms length yourself, then you marvel when your neighbors do not rush to vote for them because you kind of sort of support them a bit, but not fully and not in name?
Independent is a term of art. Usually it means 'too shamed to say Republican'.
My advice to you is that you use your bipartisan independent nature to promote better voting law in Ohio, paper ballots and easy access. That's step one. It can be done by Democrats, Republicans and those of you who are 'indepedents'.

[riqster]

73. That is a complete mischaracterization of my post, and I suspect you know it.

Saying "we need to elect more Democrats" does not in any way, shape or form equate to " preaching about how bad Democrats are'.

A complete fallacy, presented in a smug and offensive manner.

[Bluenorthwest]

79. You say it is the fault of the average voter that your candidates lost.

Ohio historically rates at #31 among the States in terms of registration and voter participation. That's why your candidates lose.
Your personal attack is really not called for. I wonder how much that style helps the turn out you complain about in Ohio?
If you love Blue Dogs, elect them. If you can't accept that you failed to elect them, the candidate failed to attract voters, try to figure out why and do something different next time.

Best thing you could do is register voters non stop. Please do that. Blame who you need to blame, just go make more Ohio voters now. The rest is just a heap of rhetoric. Go make voters. Try to make it easier for people in Ohio to vote as well. Please. Blame liberals if you want, but go register voters and try to improve Ohio election law. Please.

[riqster]

82. No, I did not say that.

I identified specific behaviors in my OP, that do not necessarily apply to a larger aggregate group.

And as to your suggestions (change voting laws and GOTV), that is what I do (and said I do) and want more people to do (as I also said and advocate). I am aware that Ohio is an electoral septic tank, and have been working diligently and for many years to change it.

It is plain to me that you read what you wanted to see, and not the words I wrote.

[Bluenorthwest]

91. Have you read you OP? Here is what you wrote:

"Then came 2010. Lots of Dems, Leftists, Progressives (pick your label) sat out the election: if they did vote, they were less active, and so we got our asses handed to us"
But you are an Independent 'centrist' so you are casting the blame on others. You do not offer support for those assertions because there is no factual support for the crap you are spouting, the characterization parade is not supported by reality. Which is why you speak in terms of opinion not statistics. Your opinion is incorrect.
Some candidates in some areas failed to attract voters. Most of those candidates were 'moderate centrists' who were insufficiently different from the Republican opponent. The low turn out and losses were not nation wide, they had specific localities.
I'll put a link below for others to read.
We can no longer afford to indulge faith based blame casting. We need to take the House.
http://elections.gmu.edu/Turnout_2010G.html

[Paladin]

67. My sentiments exactly. (nt)

[Doctor_J]

165. only to the republicans

He's been nasty to liberals, all of whom voted for him.

[riqster]

167. That is the sort of inaccurate, inflammatory, exaggerated rhetoric I am on about

"Nasty to liberals, all of whom voted for him"? Please. Kindly quantify how he has been nasty, and prove that every liberal voted for Obama (hint: you can't prove the second piece, because I know liberals who didn't).

[OnyxCollie]

71. Max Weber calls bullshit on your post.

"Democratic mass parties are bureaucratically organized under the leadership of party officials, professional party and trade union secretaries, etc.... Of course, one must remember that the term 'democratization' can be misleading. The demos itself, in the sense of an inarticulate mass, never 'governs' larger associations; rather it is governed, and its existence only changes the way in which the executive leaders are selected and the measure of influence which the demos, or better, which social circles from its midst are able to exert upon the content and the direction of administration activities by supplementing what is called 'public opinion.' 'Democratization,' in the sense here intended, does not necessarily mean an increasingly active share of the governed in the authority of the social structure. This may be the result of democratization, but it is not necessarily the case.... The most decisive thing here- and indeed it is rather exclusively so- is the leveling of the governed in opposition to the ruling and bureaucratically articulated groups, which in turn may occupy a quite autocratic position, both in fact and form." -Max Weber

[patrice]

76. The deed was done in 2010. nt

[BlueCaliDem]

80. Judging by the ugly response you're getting here

it's clear you've touched a few sensitive nerves.

Obama Derange Syndrome is strong on DU, especially among our own brand of Fringe having descended on this site.

But there are many DUers, too, who believe exactly what you do. I'm one of them.

An enthusiastic and rec!

[riqster]

85. Thanks.

I anticipated some pretty heated responses when I posted the OP, and certainly got what I expected! Getting a conversation started, even if gets uglified, is always worthwhile.

[BlueCaliDem]

86. My pleasure, riqster.

If ever you're after some really ugly responses to spice up your day, post anything positive about President Obama. It'll guarantee that you get a lot of spicy responses that would make the habanero pepper sweat and cower.

[riqster]

90. Oh, yeah. Ghost Peppers, I'm thinking.

The funny thing is, it really wasn't a pro-Obama post in the first place: it was a call for greater personal involvement and responsibility on the part of We The People.

I'm not really a huge fan of Obama: I thought he was a good man, very bright and passionate but too inexperienced with respect to D.C. in 2008 to be the Prexy he could become (I was for Biden in the primaries. and my dream ticket was Biden/Kooch), and I'd say that events have borne that assessment out. Lots of mistakes that a more experienced politico would not have made. But he works hard and he cares. I have come to respect the man for fighting against impossible odds while getting pummeled by his adversaries and allies alike.

As I said on my blog site: "Until the Left turns out enough voters to elect a huge majority of liberal members to Congress, they will have to understand that Obama can only do what Congress lets him do. That, if you like, is the true comparison to FDR: the voters not only elected FDR, they also elected huge majorities of liberal Democrats to both houses of Congress.
That “little detail” needs to be front-and-center in the mind of every Progressive voter. They can’t just elect one man to office and then sit back in their beanbag chairs demonizing him for four years: they have to elect legislators as well; legislators that represent their interests."

In other words, whether one loves Obama or not, the only way to achieve any sort of success is to elect s***loads of Dems, everywhere we can. And if all one is doing is sitting around demonizing Obama, well, they're not helping, regardless of their ideological focus.

Thanks again for your kind words, and the beer!

[BlueCaliDem]

95. Your post title is: "It's Not Obama's Fault". That's more than enough

to get the Liberal Independents on this site to see RED and froth at the mouth.

Your post was clear and concise and deals with the true problem that's keeping this president and this country from moving forward: not a big enough Dem majority in the Senate and no majority in the House.

Call me a "group-thinker", but I have voted straight Democratic ticket in each and every election and, at times, I had to swallow my pride and personal values for the greater good. I've never missed any special elections nor do I sit out the mid-terms. I vote in every one of them. I'm a registered Democrat {although I have played with the idea of switching to Independent}. California and another state were the only two states that didn't get fickle on the Democrats and added more Democrats to our governments, from local to state to Federal. And I'm proud of that.

Today, California boasts super-majorities in both the Assembly and Senate in our Legislature. It's why we were able to push through tax increases on people making $250K + per year. We don't exclude the undocumented who pay sales taxes, and raised it a teensy bit. Combined, these tax increases are helping pay down our whopping $27B dollar deficit that Bush's buddy, Kenny-boy at Enron, had left us with and what Bush family friend, Schwarzenegger, has kept us in {as an attempt to cut social services and funds to the vulnerable in our state}.

The result?

California has paid down our deficit and it's projected that we'll have a $1 billion dollar surplus in 2014 - that's next year. The unemployment rate dropped from Schwarzenegger's 12.4% to 9.4% today and is continuing to drop each year {last year it was around 10%}.

President Obama was not given the kind of help that Gov. Brown was given. Had he the majorities in Congress as Gov. Brown has in the Legislature, we would've seen jobs on the rise, incomes rising, a new stimulus, shovel-ready jobs, and the economy bouncing back faster than anyone could have imagined. But too many Liberal Independents were furious with him that he didn't go gangsta on Congress {hence the "weak" label} but instead, worked with them as the president is supposed to, and they stayed home in 2010.

[riqster]

98. Good point on the title, I'll bear that in mind.

Excellent post on your state: I'd say it bears out the OP (and the FDR analogy) pretty well. All of you Cali Dems deserve applause and thanks for the turnaround.

The only reason I'm not a registered Democrat these days is President Washington's Farewell speech and his views on the corrupting influence of parties on democracy: predictions he made have, in my mind, come true in our day. So I don't financially support any party organization.

But the Dem platform largely speaks for me, and their candidates get my 100% support, financial, technical and organizational. In fact, I've only voted for one Reep: Gerald Ford. But hey, I was eighteen years old then.

We here in the purple cesspool that is Ohio have our work cut out for us if we are ever to achieve anything remotely like your success. But hey, hard work at least helps to stave off boredom, and it keeps one active.

[Bluenorthwest]

94. Fred Phelps gets a bad reaction too, and not because he's struck a nerve but because he's full of

shit and rhetoric about how others are the problem in the world.
Do you think when that man threw a shoe at Bush it was because Bush touched a nerve? I think it was because Bush was full of shit and rhetoric about how others are the problem in the world.

[BlueCaliDem]

96. Thank you for providing proof for my point. eom

[forestpath]

81. Wow, Obama is even weaker than I thought if posts on a messageboard

prevent him from doing stuff.

[Purveyor]

102. You think 2010 was bad? I haven't a good feeling about 2014 by the mood of the progressive

forums I visit.

Just saying and cram this thread back in my face come Nov. 2014. Nothing would delight me more than to be wrong on this.

[riqster]

103. Same here.

That concern is why I wrote the OP. Here's hoping I am proven to be completely full of it come November 2014.

[Purveyor]

105. If the White House drags the US into Syria and/or Iran the election will be devastating for him, imo

[treestar]

151. I'm thinking you prefer to see it be devastating for him

and don't care if that means devastating for the country. I really don't get the concept of punishing the Democrats for not being liberal enough by letting them be replaced with Republicans! It is shooting yourself in the foot.

[Purveyor]

153. I'm thinking you haven't a clue as to what I 'prefer'... eom

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

162. THIS!!! I've never understood the logic. Even if people are angry at Obama, don't punish good Dems

at the local and state levels because you mad at Obama!! It does nothing but put MORE--not less--nutbags into the halls of government. Why that's hard to understand, I'm not sure.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

115. I got your back, rigster. I think you're absolutely right!!

[riqster]

119. Thanks!

[treestar]

152. So the progressives are going to or wish to punish us again?

For failure to live up to their expectations, they will do what they can to let more Republicans in?

And that helps any progressive issue how?

I'm already sick of these people and their threats. If they want to take responsibility for the current R Congress then they can STFU about anything that Obama can't get done. They can take the responsibility themselves.

[AtomicKitten]

108. Good post. Pithy.

You must be wearing asbestos underpants.

[riqster]

120. Well, it did "pith" some people off.

Thanks.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

117. Fewer MODERATE Ds voted in 2010 than 2006...

but nasty ol' LIBERAL D turnout was higher. But keep fucking that ODS chicken if it makes you feel better:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/08/06/1003805/-Did-liberals-really-stay-home-and-cause-the-2010-rout

2010 Elections Exit Poll Analysis: The Political Price of Economic Pain

....

Swing-voting independents who, as usual, made the difference, favored Republicans for House by a thumping 16 points, 55-39 percent. Compare that to Obama's 8-point win among independents in 2008. It was the Republicans' biggest win among independents in exit polls dating to 1982 (by two points. The GOP won independents by 14 points in 1994, the last time they took control of the House.)

....

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/2010-midterms-political-price-economic-pain/story?id=12041739&page=2#.UWi7A7XBOSo

Ds lost 2010 because conservatives, Teabaggers, the Mushy Middle, et al. were whipped into a frenzy over Granny being offed by Obamacare death panels. Obama did next to nothing to assuage those concerns. But! Chill the fuck out, he's got this! Seriously, at what point is Obama culpable... for anything? I've never heard so many excuses for one individual politician. It's mind-boggling.

And to the poster whipped into a frenzy over Feingold's loss, "It's the economy, stupid."

WISCONSIN

INDEPENDENTS: Independents (27 percent of voters), who helped elected Russ Feingold in each of his past elections, went for the Republican candidate Ron Johnson the time, by 55-43 percent.

ECONOMY: Wisconsin voters are hurting economically, with 44 percent saying their financial situation is worse now than two years ago -- and these voters went for Johnson 2-1 (66 percent to 33 percent). In each of his past elections Feingold won economically challenged voters handedly.

OLDER VOTERS: Older voters have voted for the Democratic candidate in each of the past three Senate races, including voting for Feingold in 2004 by a 14-point margin. But not this time -- those age 65 and older went for Johnson, 54-46 percent.

INSIDER VS OUTSIDER: Feingold won solidly among voters who thought having the right experience (86-14 percent) or believed understanding the needs of people like them (54-45) mattered most to their vote. But among the 29 percent who thought that a candidate who could bring about needed change mattered most Johnson won by a 3-1 margin, 75-24 percent).

IDEOLOGY: A substantial 39 percent of Wisconsin voters said Feingold is too liberal on the issues -- and they voted for Johnson, 96-4.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/2010-midterms-political-price-economic-pain/story?id=12041739&page=7

P.S. I live in North Carolina and ran to the polls. Don't try to pin this shit on me, or those like me. We did our parts.

[riqster]

121. I am glad you did your part. So did I.

Reading the OP, I was pretty specific about the behaviors that deserved condemnation. If you didn't do those things, then you have no reason to be offended.

However, it is a fact that a large number of people on the Left (and here at DU) DID behave in the manner described back in 2010, and there are a good number who are currently advocating the same course of action in 2014 and 2016. Those jackasses are the target audience of my admittedly blunt OP.

As I have already been informed on this thread (and acknowledged), the thread title did not match the content of the OP as well as it could have. Mea culpa. I try very hard to not be unintentionally offensive.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

126. The OP was skimmed...

because of the overuse of obnoxious smilies. I have no reason to be offended even if I did do *those things* -- no one on a message board has that sort of power over me. I hear ad nauseam from Sensible Centrists that big, bad libruls caused the 2010 debacle, yet no one ever produces any data. "Good number" doesn't mean much. Show me the numbers -- by state-- that prove what you and others are asserting. Blunt is no problem; "making shit up" is.

2014 and 2016 could very well be another rout due to a number of variables: Democratic politicians retiring, possible still-high unemployment, Americans feeling the effects of sequestration, more military action in the Middle East, Rs tying Obama (and by association, Democrats) to proposed cuts to Social Security and Medicare, the promise of killing ACA, etc. Deny all you want, that's reality. And if the Mushy Middle is so easily swayed by that sort of comment, they're the problem. Perhaps your blunt crankiness (cranky bluntness?) should be directed toward them...

[riqster]

127. Oh, the Right wing and mushy sorts get blasted. But I don't address them in this forum.

I mean, really, how many members of the Marching McConnells and Boehner Brigade read DU?

And I blast the Left very infrequently. Because they rarely (in my opinion) need it.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

133. Not sure. Perhaps the True Believers can pony up...

those numbers, along with data proving the Leftist Legions who sat out 2010. But based on the very existence of a conservative website pathologically devoted to DU, social media, Dittoheads, etc. I'd say a "good number."

[creon]

122. hear hear

People need to get informed, get interested, and vote.
Elections have consequences.

[DCBob]

124. Many are just frustrated thinking Obama was going to be another FDR/JFK type.

Maybe someday that will sink into their heads and then they can focus on the matter at hand. Stopping the Republicans from running roughshod over this country.

[riqster]

125. I like this:

" focus on the matter at hand. Stopping the Republicans from running roughshod over this country."

Damn straight!

[earthside]

128. A Leader Leads.

Pres. Obama bears most of the blame for the losses of 2010.

His pandering and caving on the health care issue was the prime reason the marginally active Democratic base was not sufficiently motivated to vote.

That is a leader's job -- to lead.
In 2010 Pres. Obama did not lead or inspire.

Frankly the OP is the kind that makes me want to not even associate with some political people ... I'm pretty active, but I cannot stand hacks.

[riqster]

130. Pretty much typifies what I said in the OP

One man out of hundreds of millions is to blame for all the lazy-assed citizens who decided to roll over, show their bellies, and submit to being raped by the Reeps? Puh-leeze.

No. Each voter who decided to sit it out deserves their share of blame.

Elections are not about mystical shit like "leadership". They are about math. The side that gets more votes cast and counted wins. That's it. So anyone who fails to vote, fails their party and their nation.

Yes, Obama's been a disappointment in lots of ways. That's why I don't much care for the man, and didn't support him in the primaries. But saying "fuck Obama, I'm staying home" is an abdication of the personal responsibility that belongs to all citizens of these United States.

I am glad you're active. Bless you. And anyone who isn't, or encourages others to sit it out because they don't like the Prexy: well, they can probably guess what word I'd substitute for "bless" when I address them.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

136. "Leadership" is what gets many to the polls.

Anyone paying attention during the Bush debacle should know that. George W. Bush was a colossal asshole, but many perceived him as having conviction, as standing for something, for being "strong." Hell, wanting to have a beer with him rather than Gore or Kerry was enough to get some (Mushy Middle, I'm guessing!) to cast their votes. People need a reason to vote. And I still think you (and others) are vastly over-stating the "fuck Obama" non-vote. "It's the economy, stupid."

[riqster]

139. Marketing is important. To a point.

Yes, manufactured images can sell a lot of horse apples; and Obama sucks out loud at messaging in general, and frankly couldn't sell ice cubes in Hell: I mean, he really, truly, massively sucks at marketing (which is the phenomenon I believe you're describing).

But ask yourself where we'd be if we had busted ass in 2010 and kept the House. And we could have done it, economy or no. Obama WAS fixing the economy in 2009 and 2010, but did a crap job of selling it. And nobody else sold it for him, everybody was waiting for him to do it all. He didn't. So people got despondent or angry, and an issue that could have worked for us worked against us.

Instead of relying on the President to do a job we know he stinks at, instead of blaming him for not being able to something he stinks at, instead of being mad because still can't do something he stinks at...well, shit. We will have to do it ourselves. That is the essence of Democracy.

My OP was all about that. We. The. Fucking. People. Not Obama, not Reid, not any one politician. Us. All of us. If we stay strong, stay motivated, and don't slack off, we can take the House back in 2014. And beat the Filibuster in the Senate.

And then, we'll see some proper action.

If not, we'll see 2010, Part Deux: The Sequel. The choice belongs to each of us, and so does the responsibility.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

140. He admits to not being a schmoozer, and by all intents and purposes...

doesn't seem to have good working relationships with his fellow Democrats on the Hill. These dinners of late are very reactionary, and too little, too late. That's on HIM, not any of us.

And he can market when he wants to... ascending to the office of president proves that. But he's selective in his marketing. Barely a peep re: "Obamacares," which baffled many. Why didn't he sell it? I watched Jim Moran and Howard Dean take a beating by Teabaggers at a Northern Virginia townhall and wondered where the fuck Obama was. He's to be commended for taking a strong stand in support of Planned Parenthood and reasonable gun control, but is conspicuously silent on other important issues. So it's selective "stinking at."

And speaking of Howard Dean... Purple to Blue. And God knows he's got his work cut out for him. Which is especially interesting since the Obama Adminstration was so dismissive of him. Why is that?

Sorry, I'm just not buying this O'bambi nonsense. The buck has to stop somewhere.

[riqster]

146. The buck stops with us.

We the people.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

148. This *people* helped put him into office twice...

only to be astounded when he didn't let the Bush tax cuts expire as scheduled, and when he offered up cuts to SS and Medicare. That shit is on HIM, not "We the people." Seriously, did the man not pay attention during the Clinton administration? Did he think he'd flash that toothy grin and win over Republicans? It's pretty funny actually. In a sad sorta way. Congressional Republicans have no respect for him, and he's alienated progressives. He made that bed -- not "We the people." Brilliant leadership, my ass.

[riqster]

150. And lots of people sat out 2008.

Which, as said in the OP, lost us the House.

Obama needs pushed to the Left.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

164. Being a schmoozer for what? For whom? Nobody likes the man and he has NO friends in the

corporate media.

And you're referring to the president as "O'bambi"? That's what the wingnuts call him. Just silly.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

166. No,"O'bambi" is how his Biggest Fans are portraying him,

Last edited Tue May 7, 2013, 05:27 PM - Edit history (2)

likes he's a total babe in the DC woods. And they don't even realize it. Washington is nothing if not a town of schmoozers, and Obama freely admits that he's not one. He doesn't twist arms, he selectively uses the bully pulpit, he appears to have marginal relationships with fellow Democrats, he doesn't welcome their hatred -- someone please tell me what he DOES do. Besides chess, football, roping dopes, chilling the fuck out, acting like the only adult in the room, etc.

So, what's your/the solution, since no one "likes" him and he has "no friends in Corporate Media"? Other than ride out a really lonnnnng 3.5 years...

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

168. You need to read my last few posts over a couple of days. I state my solution quite

emphatically and clearly.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

169. LOL Yeah, I'll get right on that.

Wow, the *ego* of some DUers...

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

170. Says the one who was condescending towards the other.

[Addison]

141. Oh, he just "accidentally" got in bed with Wall Street?

[Dawson Leery]

142. Can't blame Obama is you are not involved in the process.

Markey leads by just 4%.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=303137

Not Obama's fault if this seat goes to the GOP. It will make his job harder, but Obama is not at fault for this.

[mikekohr]

144. One of the last things my Father said to me before he passed on, was that he was happy to have lived

long enough to see President Obama re-elected.

He was also angry that so many rank and file Democrats sat out in 2010 making President Obama's job all that more difficult.

[lame54]

145. You're right I'll stop putting pot smokers in for profit prisons

[treestar]

147. Self government is a wonderful thing

So is the separation of powers. It is a pity that too many Americans don't appreciate it. They think they pick one person, the President to rule over everything. It's sad, really. They are the ones looking for an idol.

[riqster]

149. Especially so in Obama's case.

Lots of people in 2008 acted like he was a messiah, not a Presidential candidate. Of course he failed to live up to their expectations.

[jazzimov]

156. KNR. GOTV in 2014!

[Doctor_J]

163. yep. blame the left. must be either du or Fox nation

Getting hard to tell them apart.