Dear Progressives, Focus Your Ire on The U.S. Senate

[Yavin4]

If you want more progressive legislation, more help for America's middle and working classes, better education, an end to the wars, then focus your ire on the U.S. Senate.

The U.S. Senate, not the White House is your enemy. Here's proof:

1. You want out of Afghanistan and Iraq? Well, it's the Congress that funds these wars. If they stop funding them, then we'd have to leave, which is what happened in Vietnam, regardless of what the President wants, we would have to leave.

2. You want Single Payer health care like Europe, then elect more Progressives to the U.S. Senate. Otherwise, you devise a strategy that would get key Dems and some Republicans to drop their filibuster threats.

3. You say change the Senate rules on filibusters, then you devise a way to get 2/3 of the Senate to agree with that. Again, you're going to need more progressive senators to get this done.


4. You want a WPA style government works program? Either elect more Al Frankens or devise a strategy that can persuade Blanche Lincoln or Ben Nelson to not filibuster.

In the end, it doesn't matter how Progressive Obama, or any other President is or can be, that President will still have to contend with a senate that is NOT PROGRESSIVE.

And please, for crying out loud, don't use "Bush got whatever he wanted argument". Bush asked for tax cuts and wars, two of the easiest things to vote for in the Senate. Tax cuts for the rich become campaign donations, quid pro quo. Wars allow the pols to look patriotic and shovel money to the MIC which also comes back to them in campaign donations and jobs.

Strong progressive legislation does not translate into immediate campaign kickbacks.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

1. Obama appointed Gates who just asked for $37bn more for the lost war in Afghanistan.

"The buck stops here" still applies.

[havocmom]

6. And the Senate did not nominate all those corporate shills in the cabinet

Sure, they rubber stamped them, but that's what they do when the president is the same party as the senate majority.

Ultimately, the Oval Office is where it comes from.

Gads, according to some around campus, Obama has no power and must be defended constantly by anonymous posters on an obscure web site. Weird, huh?

[cliffordu]

72. The progressives in congress could have gotten off their

dead asses and blocked the nominations, no?

Rubber stamp indeed.

[Raineyb]

96. When they don't oppose they're just sitting on their dead asses, and when they do

they're helping the Republicans. Progressives just can't win with you can they?

[Stinky The Clown]

85. I've always wondered about that, too. He must be a very fragile man.

[Yavin4]

12. So What!

Nixon wanted more money for Vietnam, but the Congress, a Progressive congress, said no.

The Congress still has the power to say no.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

35. I'll not be voting for my senators who vote for the increase.

[karynnj]

60. might want to check your history

I( think they said "no" AFTER combat troops were out.

[cliffordu]

71. Did I tell you I'm getting divorced?

[Rhiannon12866]

2. K&R. Well said!

Thank you. :fistbump:

[Davis_X_Machina]

3. It's Rahm! Raaaaaaaaaaaaahm!

Raaaaaaaaahm!

[Radical Activist]

13. lol

Yeeeaaargh!

[gratuitous]

4. I can think of one former Senator who could be jawboning the World's Greatest Deliberative Body

But I haven't seen him much out in front, except to make a grandiose announcement that then gets walked back, and a pipsqueak of an improvement (when a cannonade was promised) that we're all supposed to get excited about. Match the actions to the words, and perhaps I'll be a little more inclined to get after the Senate. As it is, the Senate gets to be lazy and inactive, and there's no leadership from the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue that holds them accountable. Why should they shift their asses if there's no political price to pay for staying put?

[Ozymanithrax]

15. How does the White House hold the Senate Accountable.

The Senate is one of two members of a coequal branch of government.
They do not work for Obama.
He can not fire tham.
He can not affect their pay.
The most he can do, as head of the Democratic Party, is threaten to not support their reelection. More than a few have already said they don't want his help because they serve indistricts and states that are opposed to a black President in Office.

[gratuitous]

44. Yeah, you're right

Calling folks up to the White House is out of the question. Making public statements about what he'd like them to do, and helping to define, organize and focus widespread public sentiment in favor of things like single payer healthcare (supported by a huge majority of the population) or more effective regulation of the financial sector is just too much to ask of just one man and his overworked staff.

[glitch]

55. That is so old school.

You must be remembering a time we had a functional government (as opposed to perceptual).

[Ozymanithrax]

86. None of that holds them accountable.

The Constitution is clear that the only people who can hold the Senate acocuntable are the voters.

[EFerrari]

5. Did you say Blanche Lincoln?

lol

[Sebastian Doyle]

7. No doubt that the useless DLC fuckstumps in the Senate deserve much of the blame.

But they didn't hire Obama's cabinet. When you appoint people like Emanuel, Geithner, Summers, Duncan, VilSuck, and actually keep the Bush Crime Family/"former" CIA shitball at defense, then the executive branch can hardly be described as "progressive" either.

So no, you don't get to blame it all on those dozen or so idiots in the Senate.

[Yavin4]

14. Are You Kidding Me? That's Your Argument? Obama's Cabinet?

Please tell me that you're kidding.

The cabinet?

[DevonRex]

23. That's the meme of the day.

:shrug:

[Sebastian Doyle]

24. Your argument is that Obama would have a progressive agenda if we had a Democratic Senate

But how is that possible when he has:

A Chief of Staff who thinks REAL Democrats are "fucking retards".

A Secretary of Education who wants to abolish Public Education, replace it with privatized "charter schools" and kill teachers unions.

A Secretary of Agriculture who is a known MonSatan shill.

An economic team of Wall $treet/"federal" reserve whores.

Keeping Chimpy's secretary of "defense" (and his wars)

HOW CAN A PROGRESSIVE AGENDA COME FROM THESE RIGHT WING TOOLS?

[Radical Activist]

27. Obama already has a progressive agenda.

I notice that your list is about people you don't like, not actual agenda items. hmmm... what does that tell us?

Here's a partial list of proposals from Obama that were more liberal before they were watered down the by Senate:
HCR with the public option
Cap and trade
Tougher Wall street regulation
More direct jobs spending in the stimulus bill
Closing Gitmo

See a pattern?

[Yavin4]

29. The Senate Is Stopping Repeal of DADT

Not Obama. Nor his cabinet.

[Sebastian Doyle]

37. And what did we get out of that list, Chad?

"HCR" with the public option- with mandated payments to corporate criminals, which the President specifically claimed he OPPOSED in his campaign, which helped him defeat Hillary, who DID support mandates/

Cap and trade - status undetermined. I don't think it's "dead", just backburnered.

Tougher Wall street regulation - Nope. Another shell game giving more power to the "Federal" Reserve. The REAL way to Wall Street regulation was already done. By that President your dad told you to hate. FDR's REAL reforms worked just great. Until the Bush Crime Family and DLC began the systematic destruction of them over the last 30 years. The REAL solution, is to repeal all this corporatist deregulation, and return to the reforms which protected this country for half a century.

More direct jobs spending in the stimulus bill - This is where the veto power comes in. If the Senate doesn't send the President a bill worth signing, then he shouldn't fucking sign it. (Also applies to the health care fiasco)

Closing Gitmo - Who knows what the story is there? I think it's more a case of them knowing that most of the people being held there weren't guilty of shit in the first place. But if the Obama administration admits to that, it would mean that the Bush Crime Family broke the law and would need to be investigated. And for whatever reasons, Neither Obama or Eric Holder seem willing to pull the trigger on that one.

[Radical Activist]

39. Who is Chad?

Why don't you explain that?

Your responses don't seem to have any relevance to the discussion.

Did Obama propose something more liberal than what passed the Senate on each of these issue? Yes.
Would more liberal legislation be law today if the Senate had more liberals in it? Yes.
Is the President the chief obstacle to progressive legislation or the Senate? The Senate.
Therefore, does it make sense to make the Senate the primary target in efforts to move legislation left? Yes.

Before your next list of random complaints about Obama, please consider whether it actually challenges any of the above conclusions.

[PassingFair]

66. Yes, a pattern of delusional thinking...

on your part.

Except for the jobs spending in the stimulus bill,
he flushed the rest of the agenda down the toilet
before they BEGAN to water things down.

[Radical Activist]

70. That spin is so tiring.

He introduced and supported everything on the list. Gitmo was very obvious. They just removed funding to close it against Obama's wishes. And he's still fighting for cap-and-trade. You may believe every unsourced, off the record accusation anybody makes on a blog but I choose not to be that gullible.

[PassingFair]

74. Right... he went down fighting for a public option!

Delusional with a BIG "D"

[Radical Activist]

76. That's right. He didn't go down failing for a lost cause.

He passed a major bill.

[PassingFair]

95. You just said that "lost cause" was part of his "agenda".

You must be driving one of these:

[Radical Activist]

98. Another cliche.

Or we could make the most logical conclusion, which is that we saw Obama push for the public option for months, and he was forced to accept that the Senate would never pass it. Deciding that it was better to pass a bill without the PO was obviously controversial, but the hysteria about maniacal secret deals made behind closed doors because Obama secretly hates the plan he campaigned on sound really stupid.

[U4ikLefty]

100. I thought Obama strongly stated that he would NOT pass a bill

without a meaningful public option.

[Yavin4]

28. Incorrect. My Argument Is That We Would Have Progressive Action and Laws

If we had a Progressive Senate, no matter who the president is.

The Senate could pass a WPA bill, more stimulus, and extension of UE benefits, Single payer, and put them all on Obama's desk to sign, and he would.

It has nothing whatsoever to do with who is in his cabinet.

[Sebastian Doyle]

40. I'm sure you're familiar with whitehouse.gov

From that website:

"The tradition of the Cabinet dates back to the beginnings of the Presidency itself. Established in Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution, the Cabinet's role is to advise the President on any subject he may require relating to the duties of each member's respective office."

So the President gets advice from his cabinet. And with a cabinet full of right wingers and corporatist shills, exactly what sort of advice do you suppose that is?

[Kweli4Real]

38. What the OP is saying is ...

It doesn't matter what the president does. He can HELP promote a progressive agenda; but it'll be the house and the senate that enacts a progressive agenda.

[Sebastian Doyle]

43. And what I'm saying is

This president appointed a cabinet which is COMPLETELY INCAPABLE of creating a progressive agenda, and that cabinet is giving the President bad advice. Which he apparently doesn't have a problem with, as he appointed them.

[proud2BlibKansan]

78. + a gazillion

[Yavin4]

51. Thank You.

Dennis Kucinich could be president with Ralph Nader as his VP, and Ben Nelson and the Republicans would filibuster everything they wanted to do.

[treestar]

49. What do they have to do with the Senate?

They are not in the Senate.

[Yavin4]

52. Obama Could Have Angela Davis, Phil Donahue, Michael Moore,

David Sirota, Bill Moyers, Rachel Maddow, Glen Greenwald, Dennis Kucinich, Thom Hartmann, Alan Alda, George McGovern, and the ghost of FDR in his cabinet, and Ben Nelson still wouldn't vote for UE Extensions.

[Sebastian Doyle]

57. Fuck Ben Nelson and his rug.

He's one goddamned useless idiot. One of a dozen or so useless idiots. "Led" by a spineless idiot "Majority Leader" who doesn't know the meaning of either word.

None of that changes the fact that Obama appointed a cabinet of right wing tools who are giving him bad advice, and he doesn't seem to mind.

[treestar]

102. LOL love that cabinet!

:rofl:

[femmocrat]

8. My biggest gripe (besides the two wars) is Arne Duncan.

Do you know of any senators who oppose Race to the Top? Thanks.

[The Magistrate]

9. No Question, Sir, the Senate Is The Problem, Though Many Senators Are No Help Either....

[EFerrari]

32. . . .

[Oregone]

10. Dear Progressives, shut up and do what I say

[Yavin4]

16. So, You Have No Real Retort To My Post

You just manufacture outrage by adding words that were never in my post in the hopes of hijacking the thread without offering a rebuttal.

[Davis_X_Machina]

19. Forget it, Jake...

...its Chinatown DemocraticUnderground.

[BootinUp]

61. lol nt

[Name removed]

21. Deleted sub-thread

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

[Radical Activist]

11. This is the best strategy if the goal is to pass progressive ideas into law.

Another example is that HCR reform passed the House with the public option, but was killed by the Senate.
Cap-and-trade already passed the House with help from Obama, but stalled in the Senate.
Obama tried to close Gitmo during his first month in office and the Senate stopped him.

It's easy to only think about the big, obvious target up top, but it isn't particularly productive in this case.

[DevonRex]

20. That is a perfect example. Thank you.

:hi:

[Davis_X_Machina]

22. Maybe if the goal is to pass progressive ideas into law.

But the goal is for me to feel good about myself, and pass progressive ideas into law.

Don't make me choose!

[BootinUp]

53. Excellent point

but don't expect the "DU progressives" to acknowledge it.

[ecmphd]

17. We have to wake up as a party first

Too many Democrats are falling asleep, and not posting to blogs, donating, etc.

Wake Up !

http://politics.newsvine.com/_news/2010/07/16/4689183-obama-builds-on-a-record-blurred-by-poor-economy

See this blog from Newsvine on Obama and the "blurry economy". Look at all the Republican posters. On Newsvine you can vote in agreement or disagreement. Posts with a lot of disagreement are SILENCED. As a matter of fact if you read the blog you can see how many Democratic posters are silenced.

We need to work harder on Republican blog sites and sites on Newsvine so that independent voters get both sides of the argument.

Wake Up !

[slay]

25. I see no purpose in posting on "newsvine"

none. why newsvine? i post on yahoo comments from time to time but my life does not revolve around supporting the democratic party. in a lot of ways i feel let down by them anyways. oh and screw newsvine for such heavy handed censorship. more like a waste of time to post there it sounds like.

[patrice]

36. Regarding replies to your post: You are the one to decide whether you are being effective

or not. Newsvine (which I don't know much about) or elsewhere, you will know whether it's worthwhile by the discourse that you create.

[slay]

18. I think we can blame both Obama and the senate for stuff like escalating the war

i know i can. he could say he wanted out if he was so inclined. but he's not. and we've been there longer than vietnam. i will never be able to explain or excuse his embrace of this "war". :(

[Yavin4]

26. If You Had A Strong Progressive Congress, They Would Force Him Out

Reagan desperately wanted to invade Nicaragua and El Salvador, and he had all of the popularity in the world to do it.

However, the Congress back then restrained him.

[LWolf]

30. How about if I focus my ire on the Senate AND the neoliberal administration? nt

[Yavin4]

31. That Would Be Foolish

You're splitting your energy and focus which will diminish the prospects of attaining the desired goal.

[LWolf]

33. I have enough to go around.

Powered by enough rage to torch a city, if I allowed it out.

[havocmom]

34. OK, how bout this

We stop listening to people who really do not want change and keep yammering at others not to bother to try?

[Bluenorthwest]

41. Energy when split does not halve, but rather it doubles

This is not a binary choice. They both hold their own bags of blame. No one has to pick one, sorry if that bugs you. Obama himself is a product of that very Chamber, and he has done precious little in the way of ire focusing, or in talking about the deep running problems in that body. No, he has instead been heaping praise on conservative Senators and taking issue with liberal Senators, but most importantly he has not addressed the systemic problems in the Senate, nor has he advocated for them to make changes he saw as needed in his recent time in that body. He is free of any opinion that the Senate is in the ditch, and it is in the ditch. It is a hostage body. And silence will not free it.
To frame this as a binary choice, in which one party gets a pass just to 'focus' on the other is an absurdity with no basis in reality. But have fun with it!

[glitch]

56. Gotta admit

I am a fan. :hi:

[JoePhilly]

42. Why not focus our IRE on the GOP ... ????

If they get control of ANY branch of government we won't get compromised progress ... we'll get F***ked.

Not sure why this fact is not clearer to some.

[havocmom]

45. Because DEMs are in control and we are still not getting that chage

Why spend energy whining about the guys we all know are not working for us. Only reason I can think of is it would divert attention from the fact that our own team is also not working for us.

Just engaging in partisan yammering is the problem, not the solution.

[JoePhilly]

47. Baloney.

The GOP's obstruction is total and complete. They understand that unity is power.

meanwhile, we on the left appear to be unable to recognize the difference between STRATEGY and TACTICS.

If we want the Dems to be bolder, then we have to give them room ... give them strong support up front because that creates LEVERAGE against the other side.

When we on the left (which ever sub-group you pick) starts off with an all or nothing position, we reduce the overall support level ... and then ...

The media combines ALL of those "opposed" from the right and the left and then claims that the American people think Obama is "too liberal". Then they claim the country is "center-right". Which drags some independent sheep to that position as well.

We all want more ... so cheer small victories early and often ... victory breeds victory. If we were more united, we'd get more, not less.

[havocmom]

62. Mayo! if the GOP is controlling everything from their minority position

How come bush got every damned thing HE wanted when WE were the all powerful minority?

:rofl:

[JoePhilly]

67. Are you that naive???

You actually made my point.

The GOP stands UNITY. In almost every case, the sided with Bush.

Meanwhile, the Dems were divided ... and they GAVE Bush what he wanted.

Fast forward to now ...

The GOP is still UNITED.

Meanwile, the Dems are divided ... and we let the GOP block whatever they want to block.

You don't see it do you ....

[havocmom]

92. I see fine, and work to get DEMs onto the Hill

But one must recognize that blaming lack of action on the party NOT in power points to a flaw in your argument. If the minority party has so much power....

Yes, I know the GOP is lockstep and all, but most of the DEMS rubber-stamped too much of bush's wish list. IF minority party can stop things, then, ahem, the last minority has much to answer for.

Short answer, Not naive at all. It is easy to see that too many pols, regardless of what letter is behind their name, are bought and paid for by the corporate giants. Notice I said pols, not just senators and congressmen.

[asdjrocky]

46. As long as the buck doesn't stop at Obamas desk.

Right?

[Yavin4]

48. Do You Want Progressive Change or Do You Just Hate Obama?

If you want progressive change for the better focus on electing progressives to the senate. If you want to hate on and punish Obama, go right ahead, but that progressive change won't happen for you.

[Bluebear]

107. 'If you want to hate on and punish Obama' - how old are you, just curious?

[JoePhilly]

50. Best you could do??

If we want real change ... you have to do better than a bumper sticker.

Example .... Obama pledged to forge AGREEMENT across the aisle ... can you explain why he has FAILED at doing so.

You have 2 choices ...

1) Obama has ignored the GOP and its very rational proposals (this is what the media claims) ... basically, he's too liberal and unwilling to work with the GOP.

OR ...

2) The GOP was never going to work with him and so his PROMISE to forge compromise can never be achieved. And its his fault for thinking it could.

So ... this promise will fail ... and the buck stops with Obama ... now ... has he ignored the GOP, or underestimated their willingness to watch the economy sputter in a cynical attempt to regain power.

[BootinUp]

54. This is a very logical idea

why you post it here?

[glitch]

58. Agreed, now is the time to focus on Congress (not just the Senate, although they need it most). nt

[jgraz]

59. Yeah! It's not like the White House organized a filibuster of drug reimportation

Oh wait...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/11/pharma-deal-shuts-down-se_n_388895.html

http://openleft.com/diary/16574/evidence-makes-dorgans-charge-against-the-white-house-seem-entirely-plausible

[havocmom]

63. You are a really naughty little woodchuck

Pulling facts up and everything to prove your point....

:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

[jgraz]

64. Hey, I'm just being sensible.

[BootinUp]

65. All that this proves is that the Administration

took steps they felt were necessary to get the bill through. Using logic is a wonderful thing.

[jgraz]

69. So they killed an incredibly popular amendment

to preserve their incredibly UNpopular deal with Billy Tauzin and Big PHRMA. Remind me again how that made the bill more likely to pass? I mean, with all your fancy LOGIC you should be able to come up with something.

[BootinUp]

73. And the deal with pharma

what was it again?

[jgraz]

75. Seriously?

What are you doing even commenting on this thread if you're that uninformed? Here, let me help you out: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=obama+pharma+deal

[BootinUp]

77. This is for your education not mine. nt

[jgraz]

79. I believe you, really I do.

:eyes:

[BootinUp]

81. If you go through this excercise

you will be able to understand the reason for the deal. So, what was it?

[jgraz]

82. What's an "excercise"?

This is for your education, not mine.

[BootinUp]

83. You're just not ready to deal with some facts.

I understand.

[jgraz]

84. Can you explain what a "fact" is?

This is for your education, not mine.

[BootinUp]

87. What's the problem

Since you are so sure the deal was bad I thought you would know all about it?

[jgraz]

88. Are you capable of following the link I gave you?

This is for your education, not mine.

[BootinUp]

89. How will you understand the logic without making an effort?

Its so easy for you to repeat the blogosphere "progressive" attack line. I sincerely think you need to refresh your memory of the what the deal was and maybe have someone walk you through it.

[jgraz]

91. Maybe you could demonstrate your command of the facts on this subject.

This is for your education, not mine.

[BootinUp]

93. Lets see, there was an agreement

that the Pharmaceutical Organization would not fight the legislation with advertising campaigns etc. Correct? And more right?

[jgraz]

99. Once again, reading the links I posted will probably help you out here.

This is for your education, not mine.

[BootinUp]

101. Its just curious to me how you seem to resist

my comments continue below the article snippet.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/06/health/policy/06insure.html

But unlike the drug companies, the insurers have not pledged specific cost cuts. And insurers have also steadfastly vowed to block Mr. Obama’s proposed government-sponsored insurance plan — the biggest sticking point in the Congressional negotiations.

The drug industry trade group, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, also opposes a public insurance plan. But its lobbyists acknowledge privately that they have no intention of fighting it, in part because their agreement with the White House provides them other safeguards.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Its just curious to me how you seem to resist directly talking about the deal in factual terms, and not in "fiery progressive speak".

Once pharma was eliminated as an active foe, the prospects for passing a bill immediately looked better. Probably why AARP started supporting the effort. The hurdle was still high, but there would be less lobbying and ad campaigns opposing, then would have been otherwise.

As tough as it was to pass the fucking thing in the end, it makes even more sense now than before.

But let me guess. You are going to argue that there were some other motives than just to improve the chances of passing a bill AND getting the cost concessions.

[jgraz]

104. This is for your education, not mine.

I resisted until you stopped playing games and actually made a semi-meaningful statement. Now that you have, I can see that you're more interested in spin than fact.

The "cost concessions" will end up making the drug companies tens or hundreds of billions of dollars. Who pays for that?

It was politically stupid, legislatively stupid and financially stupid. And it went directly against Obama's explicit campaign promise against "playing games" with Billy Tauzin and Big Pharma.

Really, there's no need for me to retype things that both of us know. Watch the video at the link, read the article that they reference. You can spin all you want, but there's no refuting what happened

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-l3c8QWJaoQ

[BootinUp]

105. What Happened

They got a bill passed that many thought would never happen and the reason for the deal is exactly what I said. You and others can disagree with the tactics, but history was made. The long struggle suggests that getting the pharma part settled up front was actually a brilliant move.

[jgraz]

106. Its (sic) just curious to me how you seem to resist

responding to any of the specific points laid out in the links I've provided. At this point, you and I are the only two people paying attention to this conversation, and you have no desire to do anything but spin.

Since I know the facts, you have no hope of convincing me, so maybe we both should go out and enjoy the weekend. Ta. :hi:

[Kweli4Real]

68. Reading the responses in this thread ...

One would think that democrats have forgotten, or are ignoring a basic fact about our system of government. The President can help push an progressive agenda, but really only acts as a cheerleader for the cause. As the OP indicates, it is the congress that proposes and enacts legislation and approves funding for policies.

If democrats want a progressive agenda we should pressure those that actually proposes the legislation, rather than act all republican like seeking a dictator to mandate the change.

Yes, Bush got everything he wanted, even with his party being in the minority ... why? Because congressional democrats felt no pressure from their base not to go along with his madness.

[butterfly77]

80. I am wondering..

why its taking so long for people to see who is blocking everything. Everytime an issue comes up they have to beg and give up some more tax cuts and they continue to ask for more and then still don't vote for the bill.

You could see it very clearly during the healthcare debate and from there on. I get so tired of watching the Dems chasing after olympia snowe and the rest..The mississippi so called Dem had a townhall and told the audience to be sure he wasn't going to vote for the main parts of the bill we wanted.

[depakid]

90. The Senate is clearly a problem- but unfortunately, so is this administration

[havocmom]

94. Yep, too many pols are doing for corporations and not the people

And I said pols, not congress critters. Admin is a part of the problem too. And so we keep the heat on those two branches, and get grief for our trouble.

[Bluebear]

97. "Leave the President alone!!!1"

It's like the Executive branch doesn't even exist anymore for some people.

[JonLP24]

103. I agree mostly

I do agree that the Senate is the biggest road block of getting progressive legislation passed. However the President doesn't need the Senate to not do the things he has done wrong. My biggest and pretty much main complaint is the area of civil liberties. The administration has fought in legal cases involving terror detainees, warrantless wiretapping, and some others like blocking the photos. In those cases he was throwing up the same legal arguments as the Bush administration. Yes he also has signed a lot of legislation that is great but there are real reasons why I am upset.

With that said, my attention is focused on 2010 elections. That is the most effective route at this time to try to get progressives in both houses. That is where the focus should be is trying to do that. 2012 is still some ways away but I believe Obama will be the winner of the Dem nomination and will vote for him in the General. Though I probably won't be as happy as when I cast my vote for him back in '08.

On edit-The Senate, especially blue dogs are the ones I'm angry at the most besides Republican. They're are always sky high on my hate-o-meter.