Heard a comment asking Obama to channel his inner LBJ.

[styersc]

"Accordingly, I shall not seek, and I will not accept, the nomination of my party for another term as your president." (LBJ March 31, 1968)

[Fire1]

1. Stop listening to the voices in your head. n/t

[boxman15]

2. And how would that be productive?

Saying Obama isn't liberal enough for you is one thing (I'd argue against that, but I understand where you'd be coming from), but suggesting that he not seek re-election is absurd. What good would that do? Are Michele Bachmann, Mitt Romney, or Rick Perry better alternatives for you?

Push Obama to the left by putting liberals in Congress. When you have a Democratic White House, a Republican House divided between establishment GOPers and TBers, and essentially a 50/50 Senate, compromise has to happen. When Congress is filled with Blue Dogs, you can't get really progressive legislation. If you fill Congress with liberals, then we can get good legislation.

Until then, expect moderate, center-right legislation. That's what happens when progressives sit out elections: Republicans take over.

The left can be so self-defeating at times. It drives me crazy. If only we could organize and mobilize like the right, or even like we did in 2008...

[styersc]

3. My objection to Obama is not wholly that he is not liberal enough.

What has become a problem is that he is not president enough.

Today he called a press conference, showed up late, and then used the time to suggest that maybe it would be nice if someone would send him a bill.

Sure could use a LBJ or Harry Truman right now. Someone who knows what he wants and goes after it.

[boxman15]

5. Obama does know what he wants though. And he's going after it.

He's been consistent in saying that he wants a bill that would raise the debt ceiling through 2012, and will veto it if it does not, and wants both parties to come together to get something done (which is required in a divided government).

One of the most common criticisms Obama gets from the left is that he's all talk and no walk. Well, the president can't do a lot more than simply talk when it comes to getting legislation passed, especially when one of the parties has been hijacked by it's extreme wing. He's been meeting regularly with congressional leaders and has been working to get something done. Congress is where the action is.

What would Truman or LBJ have done that would've been so radically different that we'd have a deal by now? How would LBJ or Truman have gotten more liberal legislation out of these Congresses (one filled with Blue Dogs, one filled with Republicans)?

[styersc]

6. "the president can't do a lot more than simply talk .....

when it comes to getting legislation passed...." Obviously not old enough to remember LBJ or Truman.

[boxman15]

11. No, I'm not, but I have read a lot about both of them.

I regard both of them as a couple of the best presidents we've had, but what did they do that was so radically different that we'd be in so much better shape right now? They didn't have to deal with radical Tea Partiers.

[COLGATE4]

27. No, but Truman had to deal with the same assholes, although at

that time they were Southern Democrats (Dixiecrats). They just switched parties after desegregation was shoved up their noses by Democratic Presidents. Roosevelt had to deal with the entire monied Wall St. group, more powerful then than today. Neither Roosevelt or Truman had any walk in the park in their administrations. But they did have a quality that this President solely lacks - balls.

[woolldog]

43. Read about the civil right s bill

and how LBJ got that through Congress and how he twisted arms. Seriously get a book and read. That's leadership and we're sorely missing that kind of leadership now.

[Fire1]

7. There were no lunatic teabaggers during that time, either. n/t

[MissDeeds]

37. +1 n/t

[styersc]

4. And trying to ameliorate the situation by electing libs to congress

will prove very difficult with a drag at the top of the ticket.

[boxman15]

8. Primarying Obama would put an even bigger drag at the top of the ticket.

He would come out looking weak, beat up, unable to even win over his own party. That will turn off independents, make more liberals want to stay home, and make a Teabagger White House a reality.

Should Obama simply walk out, he would leave the party in complete disarray. Republicans would run away in 2012 with the presidency and huge majorities in Congress. Remind me again, how did Carter getting a primary challenge work out? How did LBJ walking away work out?

[Fire1]

10. Exactly!! It would be round 2 of 2010. n/t

[styersc]

13. Obama may come off looking weak?!?!?!?

Who could imagine that????

In regards to his positive effect on down ticket candidates, see the results from 2010.

This thread includes the excuse, (LBJ and Truman) didn't have to deal with crazy teabaggers....well who was the president when those teabaggers were elected? How is Obama's influence in 2012 going to be more effective then it was in the landslide of 2010?

[boxman15]

14. Again, how would primarying Obama help? How would him not seeking re-election help?

The Teabaggers were elected in 2010 thanks to Obama's base largely staying home, a riled up Republican base showing up in large numbers, and a wave of conservative propaganda that convinced enough independents to vote Republican. Now, people are starting to see what the Tea Party stands for. They are beginning to want to vote them out. 2012 is a great opportunity for Democrats to capitalize on that and get majorities back in both houses and keep the White House. We have an opportunity to get that change we all wanted if we only work for it. But, instead we are focused on fighting with ourselves. It's so counterproductive.

Obviously, you think Obama already looks weak. How would primarying him or making him leave make him look stronger or make the Democratic Party look stronger?

[styersc]

23. You are right. Voters now know where the Teabaggers stand.

They also have come to see the that President Obama never stands.

Since he is obviously not willing or able to fight, move over and make room for a Dem who will be willing.

Hell, I bet even Biden would be willing to scrap. We need a fighter, anyone can compromise and beg!!!!

[boxman15]

24. But, how would primarying Obama put this country in a better spot?

It makes no sense to me, and no one has been able to answer it.

[styersc]

29. A different candidate has a better chance of winning and if not

at least be able to make an argument for Democratic policies without having the electorate laugh in the candidate's face. Someone with credibility to appear in debates against the Teabag candidate is our only hope.

[boxman15]

31. Obama has no chance at winning?

The only polls I've seen that has Obama losing is to Generic Republican (R-Fantasyland). And that's a close race. Against Romney, he has won the vast majority of these polls, usually by about 5-7 points, and the ones in which he loses, he is within the margin of error.

Against Bachmann, Gingrich, Paul, Palin, Perry, and Cain, he consistently wins easily. Usually by 10 points. He seems to have a very good shot at winning in 2012. Unless we shoot ourselves in the foot by primarying him. Then one of these batshit crazy people will be president.

[styersc]

33. Sure, OK. He wins. And we are as fucked then as we are now!!!

And the electorate wises up and keeps Dems out of powers for a decade. A decade controlled by teabaggers because Democratic syncophants were not willing to make real change.

I was hopeful when Obama was elected. Now where are we?

(Here's a hint. This is where you say something weak like, "could be worse".)

[Ryano42]

9. Then let's ALL quit then!

It's all over anyway! Every EMO for themselves!!!

Just stay away from my Bernie Sanders record collection!

:P

[Fire1]

12. What's an EMO? n/t

[CakeGrrl]

18. An overly emotional person.

Emotion trumping logic and rational thought...

[styersc]

15. Can anyone honestly say that in the entire, national Democratic

Party, there is no one who could have been more effective in the last 2 and a half years? No one can think of anyone who could do a better job in the next four years.

Are we really going with the Slogan, "Obama 2012 Expect more of the same."

[Proud Liberal Dem]

28. Where is he/she and why are they shirking their responsibility to help lead their country?

:shrug:

If anybody is really serious about running against President Obama next year, they'd better be getting their stuff in gear, shouldn't they? What exactly are they waiting for? :shrug:

Where's our last best hope for this country? Find them and get them to run but I think that any primary opponent should have to explain what they'd have done different to achieve different results during the past two years. I am honest to Ra serious that I expect somebody running against a sitting President to be able to stand up and demonstrate to everybody that, given the same identical circumstances (or even worse) that he/she can actually do things differently and better than Barack Obama. Then and ONLY then would I ever consider voting for a primary challenger against President Obama.

Otherwise, sitting around and talking about Obama resigning and discussing hypothetical primary scenarios is IMHO a useless time-wasting exercise that does NOTHING productive for the party.

[styersc]

30. The proposed candidate could simply state that he/she vowed

to support the policies that Obama promised to enact but failed to. Close Gitmo, end wars, stand up to GOP to protect Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid. Further should the GOP insist in revoking the Health Car Bill, we will replace the Law which is Romney-care Lite with a Progressive Plan more Democratic with a single payer or public option, modeled after Vermont's current plan.

You know. Run a Democrat on the ticket who is interested in pursuing more traditionally democratic policies.

To answer your questio, "what good could it do", how much worse can it get?????

[Proud Liberal Dem]

32. Will he/she be able to do all of those things unilaterally???

Fighting to protect Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid (which BTW President Obama IS doing against the likes of Ryan) is one thing but unless he/she can get Congress to provide funding to close Gitmo (which Obama asked for but did not receive by an almost unanimous vote in Congress) and/or adopt a single-payer system (which would NEVER have passed in the last Congress let alone in any Congress without a progressive supermajority), then he/she can "vow" to do whatever but that won't make it happen. Surely, you realize that a President can't unilaterally legislate these things into existence, right? While it may be noble to fight for things and lose but it doesn't change the fact that at the end of the day you've still lost and gained absolutely nothing. :shrug:

[styersc]

42. I don't know if you realize but you have tried to bolster your

argument by citing a laundry list of Obama's failures.

I'm looking for a leader, not a personable guy with a list of good excuses.

All presidents, by difinition are "unilateral". In the three branch system he carries as much wait as the House and Senate combined. His strength per the Constitution is defined by his personal strength. A president who is eager to concede and compromise fails to live up to the job description.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

45. He can't write and pass his own laws-that's Congress' job (you do know this, right?)

Nor can he reach into the minds of a majority of the 535 members of Congress and make them vote his way on things either.

Also, he DID get health care reform passed, just not in the form that you approve of. BIG difference between a perceived failure and an actual failure like Clinton's health care reform proposal in 1993-1994.

So, who's your preferred primary candidate against President Obama in 2012? Who's announced so far? :shrug:

[styersc]

46. You seem to forget (or refuse to remember) that we controlled

both House and Senate for the first two years of his presidency. A strong LBJ (or Trumanesque) president would not have had to settle for Romenycare or the crumbs that you want to hail as victories.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

47. 57-58 Democrats + 2 "Independents" do not necessarily equal complete control

Also, approximately 40 House members and over 10 Senators were considered "Blue Dogs" whom consistently undermined President Obama during the last Congress. "Independent Democrat" Lieberman campaigned AGAINST President Obama's election in 2008. FDR had large majorities of like-minded Democrats to work with in Congress and neither he, Truman, nor LBJ had to round up 60 votes every single time they wanted something passed in the Senate.
I should also point out that progressive icons like FDR and Truman did not win ANYTHING on healthcare reform even though they both supported some form of universal coverage. From what I understand, LBJ compromised away universal health care and had to end up settling for Medicare for older Americans only. Democrats in Congress in the 1970's refused what might have been a promising deal on health care with Nixon because they believed that they'd win the next election and get something better/more from the next President. Obama got EVERY LAST DEMOCRAT (and 0 Republicans) on board to pass health care reform in 2010 and it barely passed. Please explain to me how anything different would've passed both houses? Or should Obama just have refused to sign anything at all? :shrug:

[CakeGrrl]

16. Where'd ya "hear" that? Over on another thread?

:eyes:

I love how people proclaim the man who literally called the shots with Osama Bin Laden in a raid that could have seriously damaged his presidency "Not President enough".

My money's on the President.

Quit being lazy and go find the person to challenge him. Why should he do your dirty work?

[styersc]

17. Or maybe you suggest,....

...."Hope and Change...No this time we really mean it!"

[CakeGrrl]

20. I suggest that I see the method to his dealings with these insane obstructionists.

No matter how romantic the idea might be, there would not be much gained in having a Sanders or Kucinich type waving the super-liberal flag while Teabaggers wave theirs and never the twain shall meet.

What would you reasonably expect to actually CHANGE with two sides sitting across from each other shouting "no compromise"?

Sifting through the shitpile created over the past several administrations is not going to be done quickly. It HAD to begin somewhere.

And it was telegraphed that the president who took over after Bush would be in for a shitstorm of criticism. That sure hasn't failed.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

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

[Fire1]

21. LOL!!! n/t

[styersc]

22. Certainly I can feel your pain and frustration.

Although I've never been anyone's syncophant, I can see how President Obama has left you without a way to defend his record. I guess I can imagine why you are frustrated beyond being able to make a cogent argument. The absence of a record is the very core of my disappointment.

Believe me, I'd love for him to surprise me. Something like demand a clean bill without strings attached, or better yet raise the limit with an Executive Order and let the Legislature take him to court (where certainly there will be saner heads then exist in the Tea Party). But with his record so far, I expect nothing more then a couple more "boo hoo" press conferences.

[Morizovich]

25. Barbecue!

Texas Grade A steak! Anyone who doesn't eat it gets shipped to Gitmo!

[styersc]

26. But the prison at Gitmo is closed!!! There is no Gitmo!!!!

Oh wait. Just Googled it and as it turns out this promise seems to have been skipped over.

Never mind.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

35. He didn't break his promise to close Gitmo (contrary to what Politifact says)

He went to Congress and requested funding to transfer the prisoners to supermax prisons here in the US. The right got nearly all of the Democrats in Congress wetting their pants over the terrifying prospect of sending these evil terrorist masterminds to maximum security prisons that currently house serial killers, rapists, etc. and they denied his funding request. They also got everybody in New York so terrified about the prospect of a federal trial for terrorist mastermind KSM that they blocked that from happening as well. To dump the whole thing on President Obama defies any semblance of reality. Obama hasn't changed his position on Gitmo and had Congress given him the funding to transfer the prisoners (just opening the doors and setting them free was not an option), Gitmo would've been closed by now.

[Roy Ellefson]

34. I'm weary

I will blame him if the debt ceiling isn't raised. He's weak and ineffectual...he's not a progressive, he's not a liberal...he's never met a compromise he didn't like...he plays right into the right wing's government is bad narrative. I hope I'm proven wrong in my assessment but there's no evidence to suggest that I won't be disappointed. My mother depends on Social Security and Medicare my two college aged kids depend on their student loans (and my Parent Plus loans) to help pay for college. All are in jeopardy...it's feeling hopeless.

[ClarkUSA]

36. "he's never met a compromise he didn't like" Is that why he rejected every single GOP deal thus far?

:sarcasm:

BTW, Bernie Sanders caved and endorsed McConnell's plan yet I haven't heard a negative attack against his weak and ineffectual decision.

Oh, and he is a liberal. Nothing but a liberal would say this:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=724983&mesg_id=724983

Note that there is zero agreement on a plan and unlikely to be one, so the chances of a clean debt bill on August 2 or resorting to the 14th Amendment is probably better than average.

[Roy Ellefson]

38. compromise

he's already compromised away revenue increases and sparing Social Security/medicare. He's allowed the right wing to completely move the goal posts. It should be a clean bill or nothing--agreeing to budget cuts is ridiculous and the height of worthless compromise.

[ClarkUSA]

39. Really? Quote exact details from the final plan that has been agreed upon by Congress.

Have you ever heard of rope-a-dope?

There's an old political adage: Nothing is agreed upon until everything is agreed upon.

[Roy Ellefson]

40. rope a dope

I hope you're right...but I'm not very confident.

[Jefferson23]

41. You're still peddling a complete distortion of what Sanders said.

Bernie Sanders

The radio interview: ....” a), we need to make sure this country does not default in as clean as way as possible, because
that would be a disaster for the country. Secondly, in my view, we need to take Mitch McConnell
up on his words. McConnell said, ya know lets take this issue to the American people. Let's debate
the issue. I agree with McConnell. What McConnell wants to do, what the Gang of Six wants to do
is make massive cuts in SS and lets be very clear what is in the Gang of Six plan. Ed if your 65 of years
of age..." ( and he goes on from there to explain their cuts, and the tax rates for the wealthy THEY want, reduced
to as low as 23% and bashes it....no endorsement...NONE.

He said the debate should go to the American people and they will be with us, meaning not a Republican plan.



Follow this link to Thursday's Interview to listen.

http://sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/news/?id=BC108D81-AB34-47C7-973F-E49F9BA0AC7E

[ClarkUSA]

50. FACT: Bernie Sanders endorses Mitch McConnell's plan: "I agree with Mitch McConnell."

Read the facts: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1549733

[Jefferson23]

52. You know you're wrong from the transcript I posted...your own

link proves what Sanders said and meant...word for word. One only needs to listen to the interview.

It is your credibility on the line, not Bernie's.

‘I Agree with Mitch McConnell' As an Aug. 2 deadline neared, Sanders stressed the importance of raising the debt ceiling so the United States can continue to pay its bills and avoid default for the first time in history. In a phrase he probably never uttered before, Sanders embraced a proposal by the Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell to raise the debt ceiling now and debate what to do about deficits during the 2012 campaign. "Let's take the case to the American people," Sanders told radio host Ed Schultz. Listen to Thursday's interview.

http://sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/news/?id=BC108D81-AB34-47C7-973F-E49F9BA0AC7E

[ClarkUSA]

53. That's a false statement. Why are you trying to mislead people?

[Jefferson23]

54. You made a mistake and obviously, you can't admit it. You know

by listening to the interview what Bernie said, and meant. He was quite clear.

The only people you are fooling are those who have not listened to the interview.

I gave you the transcript in part, you want to transcibe the rest of it yourself and we'll match
the words up....fine, let's do it.

What you're trying to pass as accurate information is not correct. You relied
on a passage that does not carry the meaning you thought at the time you posted it.

It's really that simple. You were wrong, it happens.


Bernie Sanders

The radio interview: ....” a), we need to make sure this country does not default in as clean as way as possible, because
that would be a disaster for the country. Secondly, in my view, we need to take Mitch McConnell
up on his words. McConnell said, ya know lets take this issue to the American people. Let's debate
the issue. I agree with McConnell. What McConnell wants to do, what the Gang of Six wants to do
is make massive cuts in SS and lets be very clear what is in the Gang of Six plan. Ed if your 65 of years
of age..." ( and he goes on from there to explain their cuts, and the tax rates for the wealthy THEY want, reduced
to as low as 23% and bashes it....no endorsement...NONE.

He said the debate should go to the American people and they will be with us, meaning not a Republican plan.



Follow this link to Thursday's Interview to listen.

http://sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/news/?id=BC108D81-AB34-47C7-973F-E49F9BA0AC7E

[ClarkUSA]

55. lol! Your own reply cites St. Bernie as saying "I agree with McConnell" just as I quoted.

The radio interview: .... Secondly, in my view, we need to take Mitch McConnell up on his words... I agree with McConnell.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=725886&mesg_id=726286

Why are you trying to mislead people?

[Jefferson23]

56. You're going to continue this game? You ignore the transcript, at this

point, intentionally. Did you listen to the interview, or not?

What you did is tantamount to building an OP based on a headline
and an inaccurate one at that. The only thing Sanders agreed about was
taking the issue to the American people to debate..but you
know you're mistaken at this point. You just can't admit
you made a mistake.

I'll leave the transcript and link to the radio interview.

People can decide who is misleading who, you or Bernie. I'm confident
Bernie will be the victor.

Bernie Sanders

snip* The radio interview: ....” a), we need to make sure this country does not default in as clean as way as possible, because
that would be a disaster for the country. Secondly, in my view, we need to take Mitch McConnell
up on his words. McConnell said, ya know lets take this issue to the American people. Let's debate
the issue. I agree with McConnell. What McConnell wants to do, what the Gang of Six wants to do
is make massive cuts in SS and lets be very clear what is in the Gang of Six plan. Ed if your 65 of years
of age..." ( and he goes on from there to explain their cuts, and the tax rates for the wealthy THEY want, reduced
to as low as 23% and bashes it....no endorsement...NONE.

He said the debate should go to the American people and they will be with us, meaning not a Republican plan.


http://sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/news/?id=BC108D81-AB34-47C7-973F-E49F9BA0AC7E

[styersc]

44. He has not vetoed anything yet.

You don't know that he has rejected anything.

He has said he will reject their proposals with as much fortitude as he swore he would not continue the Bush Tax cuts (that accounts from about a third of this defecit). We all know how that worked out.

[ClarkUSA]

51. He's threatened to veto Boehner's plan. Nothing is agreed upon until everything is agreed upon.

[great white snark]

48. Real change has been made. Real lives have been bettered.

Why would he step down when so much more needs to be done?

[Tx4obama]

49. That is NOT going to happen. Obama WILL run and Obama will WIN re-election. n/t