Why don't those Dems who attack progressives for breaking with the administration

[Ken Burch]

EVER try to get the administration to stop doing the things that drive progressives(including union workers)away?

Why don't they ever admit that it's the administration that needs to show loyalty, and not just the rest of us needing to show it to the administration?

Is it that hard to understand that loyalty has to be MUTUAL?

[SusanaMontana41]

1. Thank you. nt

[robinlynne]

65. +1

[ingac70]

2. So are the union workers going to vote Republican?

There are only two choices. They can sit it out and be squashed, but I don't want to hear any bitching.

[sudopod]

3. WHOOSH nt

[peace frog]

111. Fastest draw in the north, west, east and south

[msongs]

5. yep 2 chcoices, obama or the other republican lol nt

[DeSwiss]

6. Good one. :^D

K&R

[MissDeeds]

35. +1

[GreenPartyVoter]

82. *snarf*

[mike_c]

93. +1

[Divernan]

97. LOL. Like "my brother, Darryl, & my other brother, Daryll.

The Bob Newhart Show from 1982 to 1990: "Hi, I'm Larry. This is my brother Darryl, and this is my other brother Darryl."

[nadinbrzezinski]

7. WHOOSH

[Lydia Leftcoast]

9. How do you think Reagan got elected?

:eyes:

[ingac70]

25. And they got what they asked for. n/t

[Bluebear]

10. "any bitching".... Point escaped you I see.

[joshcryer]

11. They do on some issues.

[TheMadMonk]

27. If you KNOW you're going to be sexually violated in a figurative sense...

...whatever you do, then why the fuck do everything? Have a BBQ and get shitfaced whilst bitching about getting the shaft. Sideways. Splinters and all. It's all the same in the end.

FOR FUCKS SAKE MATE! If you don't like either of the two choices on offer introduce one more to your liking.

Third party and/or independent independants to take and hold a ballance of power is IMNSHO the only real posibility of recovery short of completely fracturing the system and starting from scratch.

The Democrats here in Australia (started by Don Chipp with the slogan of "Keeping the bastards honest.") only ever held a handful of seats in the senate, but it was enough to block or pass legislation. Unfortunately the party ultimately succumbed to monied interests, but the ethos has survived in Australian politics.

[zalinda]

124. You still have a some what honest media, the US, not so much. n/t

[SwampG8r]

31. so,,,off the cliff at 5 mph instead of 100 mph?

still gonna be going terminal velocity when we hit the ground

[bertman]

73. That's a great analogy, SwampG8r! REC this thread. nt

[Bandit]

50. Fear.. Fear.. Fear ..Fear.. Fear.. Fear

Is that all you got? It seems all I ever hear about.. I want to vote For someone not the lessor of two evils...You vote for the lessor of two evils and you end up with evil..

[_ed_]

53. Do you ever get sick of trying to scare people into voting for Obama?

Shouldn't you be able to find positive reasons to vote for him instead of trying to scare people with "Republicans." I guess if Obama had a record of change, you wouldn't need to resort to fear.

[Name removed]

98. Deleted message

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

[zalinda]

125. It worked in the primaries.

Remember the Bush, Clinton Dynasties posts?

zalinda

[Ken Burch]

138. That is a different issue

HRC would be to the right of Obama as president.

It couldn't have been an improvement to have her in the White House now. She'd have done everything Obama did.

[robinlynne]

66. or we can get a real Democratic candidate.

[TransitJohn]

77. That was really funny.

:rofl:

[aggiesal]

89. Yesterday the head of the AFL/CIO Richard Trumka, stated ...

that they will not be supporting Democrats with money in this
election season.

Instead they are going to invest their money in candidates to
build their own political base.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/08/25/afl-cio-president-obama-is-aligned-with-tea-party-not-fixing-jobs/

[JDPriestly]

100. Maybe their plan is to replace Obama as the presidential standard-bearer

for the Democratic Party.

Maybe the union members are going to create their own Third Way -- a Third Way for the majority of Americans, not just for the rich.

[valerief]

105. No, they'll vote the Union Party and get the rest of us to vote the Union Party, too. nt

[12AngryBorneoWildmen]

113. A Lot of Union Peeps Voted for Raygun.

And half regretted it.

[rhett o rick]

119. So you think you can bully people into voting conservative? You got another think coming.

We are going to vote the damn DINO corporatists out of our party.

Who do you think you are to tell anyone "I don't want to hear any bitching."?? You better get used to it because there is going to be hell to pay before we get done kicking the corporatists out of our party.

[bread_and_roses]

132. Guess what - a lot of union members ARE Rs - and guess what got them to vote D last time?

- which they did - by large #s ? It was the concerted work by the AFL-CIO and Change-to-Win and their State and local affiliates to convince them that it was Obama - not the R - who would protect SS, support workers' rights, and give them relief from their ever-rising health insurance costs. And guess what? NONE of those things have happened. How do you think their local leaders are going to feel this time about the huge work and $$ that must be expended to get R and I union members to vote D?

A death by a thousand cuts takes longer than decapitation by you're just as dead in the end. And yet you and others are still out there trying to tell people that electing a D is the answer.

We worked tirelessly from '06 through '08 to change the Congress and the WH. I think our leaders will have a hard time convincing a lot of my Sisters and Brothers that it's worth doing again.

[cui bono]

147. And you actually have a union icon? Must be just to try to fool people.

Union members don't sit back and take it like that so you are clearly posing and trying to start a meme.

[certainot]

150. they often do because they also believe to team limbaugh, like idiots

[texshelters]

152. I guess you never heard of

NOT voting.

I am still on the fence about voting for Obama, and with the electoral college nonsense, my Obama voter will be nullified by the electoral college.

You are yet another person who thinks progressives won't just sit this one out, and with that attitude and the disrespect, we just might.

Peace,
Tex Shelters

[On the Road]

158. Actually,

you would be surprised how many of them already do. At least judging by their political beliefs and listening habits.

[TheWraith]

4. Because one side is reality based, and the other isn't.

The White House is responsible for actually getting things done, and accomplishing the most good for the most people, even when that dictates taking less than we'd like to get. Like ending preexisting conditions and rescission, but not getting fully nonprofit healthcare. Or trading off a year of tax cuts for an extension of unemployment benefits.

The complainers, however, are not responsible for anything. They can stick to their guns as much as they like, and face absolutely no consequences for it. Whereas if they were elected, and tried that, then they would be faced with the choice of either deal making, or letting the world burn. Some here apparently wish the Obama admin would let the world burn down, millions lose their homes, healthcare be exclusively for the rich, etcetera, so long as we remain ideologically "pure."

[markpkessinger]

8. "The White House is responsible for actually getting things done," BUT ...

... whenever anybody tries to actually hold the White House responsible for what has been done on its watch, all we get is a litany of reasons why it should not be held responsible. Which is it? You can't have it both ways.

[Rex]

16. Some of them want everyone in the party sign loyalty oaths

so we are all walking lockstep with each other. In truth, they have no faith in anyone but themselves. They don't care about what other people want, they just blindly follow and obey. :crazy:

[Enthusiast]

37. Plus one!........nt

[SammyWinstonJack]

79. "You can't have it both ways." No but they sure try to have it both ways when defending Obama.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

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

[joshcryer]

18. False dilemma, I've never seen you, for example, attack progressives.

By answering in the affirmative you are basically feeding the not so subtle flamebait.

[tblue]

19. Omgosh! That last sentence, that's what YOU'RE doing!!!

You ought to be happy that you're getting your way! You have a president who meets your standards and makes you happy. We don't. All we have are the tools a regular citizen has and each other. We are the underdogs in this fight, but we will not give up no matter what names you call us. So keep stomping on the ONLY people in the country who will NOT bow to Republican-tainted ideals. And "we" includes the Progressive Caucus and now the unions. We'll continue to fight bad policy and hold politicians accountable no matter what letter they have between parentheses. And we are fighting for your rights and wellbeing too, whether you want us to or not, even if you do insult us and call us names.

[amborin]

22. You prove progressives' point! "Some here...wish .Obama...would let...millions lose their homes"

Millions *are* losing their homes, or are in danger of this.

"healthcare exclusively for the rich" well, when the dust settles on HCR...

Maybe if we remained "ideologically "pure"," we'd have better results.

[joshcryer]

23. Did he call those "some here" progressives?

[amborin]

133. so you're calling the "some here" not progressives? what are you calling them, then?

[OnyxCollie]

24. "Some here apparently wish the Obama admin would let the world burn down,"

Some here use straw man arguments and falsely attributed quotes to propagandize.

[RaleighNCDUer]

29. No consequences?

You call 20% unemployment 'no consequences'? You call the privatization of SS 'no consequences'?

If you haven't noticed, millions ARE losing their homes to the banks which Obama let off scott free, WITH their bonuses, as a reward for crashing the economy.

And down here on THIS end of the spectrum it does look like healthcare IS exclusively for the rich - a few more people can get insurance, but that does not mean they can afford to pay the premiums and co-pays and deductibles.

YOU'VE BEEN CONNED.

[TheMadMonk]

32. Can I interest you in a harbour bridge, opera house combination?

Both sides are on the side of "Knowing which side their bread is buttered on." And that my friend is the problem.

And WRONG. He also had the choice of calling the other side out; Daring the media to silence the President of the United States; He could perhaps take the side of the people who elected him, NOT engage in games of appeasement with special interests who already have an entire political party on their side.

All those "doomsday scenarios"/consequences you offer up of failing to "compromise" with what amount to hostage takers (the whole fucking world or just your part of it) strikes me as criminal behaviour. You seem to be saying "Give them what they want without a fight, because our lesser of two evils choice of governance will let them beat it out of us anyway."

The destruction of physical documentation, and numerous other clear illegalities in the bank's management of morgtages give the judicial system all the power it needs, when it can threaten to "nationalise" the whole kit and caboodle under proceeds of crime legislation. Now Mr Wells Fargo or whatever the fuck you name is, would you like to make nice with your retail customers or not?

Obama and his administration could simply encourage the enforcement of the law, rather than make every effort, as they have done to date, to conceal or forgive it's flouting.

[russspeakeasy]

90. That about sums it up...thanks madmonk..

:toast: "simply encourage the enforcement of the law"....and let's start with the Bush administration, just to let us know you are serious. We are being guided by political cowards.

[TheMadMonk]

33. Woops. DP. Browser crashed.

[scheming daemons]

39. This

[Ken Burch]

164. What the heck do you mean by "This"?

It's not like you win every time you get cryptic.

[Divernan]

54. "Letting the world burn"?!?!? Obama's the one promoting cash-cow blood bath wars.

The US MIC/Pentagon, under Obama's leadership, with over 1,000 overseas military bases, has total possession of the field when it comes to burning the world.

And you dare to talk about being "reality based"? Pffht!

Get out your little list. See that entry for when Obama promised to get us out of Iraq in his first year in office? Then it was changed to "promised to get us out of Iraq by the end of 2011". Currently, Panetta/Obama are crawling on their bellies begging & bribing the Iraqis to let us keep an unspecified number of the 46,000 US troops (currently STILL in Iraq) there for an INDEFINITE length of time in a "training capacity", stationed throughout the country, "supervising" the fighting. Panetta/Obama are SO desperate to please their MIC donors by keeping this cash cow blood bath going, that Panetta even claimed the Iraqis had agreed to it, which the Iraqis immediately denied.

So I am telling you, in no uncertain terms, that if you want to be "reality based" and see the "world burning", get your self over to Iraq and watch Obama foreign policy in it's blood soaked glory.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle-east/suicide-bomber-kills-7-policemen-in-iraqi-city/2011/08/25/gIQA3rz3cJ_story.html
"Last week, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said he believed that a deal had been reached, but Iraqi government officials immediately dismissed his statement, saying the discussion were continuing."

And for your list keeping, add a list of all the American military bases we taxpayers support so that your fearless leader can keep the uber rich and his other big corporate donors happy and the money flowing into his $billion campaign fund.

http://www.occasionalplanet.org/2011/01/24/military-mystery-how-many-bases-does-the-us-have-anyway/

"In the grand scheme of things, the actual numbers aren’t all that important. Whether the most accurate total is 900 bases, 1,000 bases or 1,100 posts in foreign lands, what’s undeniable is that the US military maintains…an empire of bases so large and shadowy that no one – not even at the Pentagon – really knows its full size and scope…An honest count of US bases abroad – a true, full and comprehensive list – would be a tiny first step in the necessary process of downsizing the global mission."

[ljm2002]

55. "Some here apparently wish the Obama admin"...

..."would let the world burn down, millions lose their homes, healthcare be exclusively for the rich, etcetera, so long as we remain ideologically "pure." "

World burning down? check - Climate change has not been addressed. Our endless wars continue and new ones have been started.

Millions losing their homes? check - Millions in this country have in fact lost their homes. (*)

Healthcare exclusively for the rich? check - Health care costs continue to skyrocket, the government still won't negotiate drug prices, and people continue to be priced out of the health insurance market -- not to mention that even the insured often can't afford actual health care.

Yep, those so-called reality-based policies are sure working out.

Personally, I wouldn't mind a little idealism, reach for the stars kind of policy making for once. Who knows, we might be able to get somewhere.

You want suggestions: 1 - re: climate change: demand 50mpg cars by the year 2015. Start a green energy Manhattan Project, creating green energy jobs as a very desirable side effect. 2 - re: wars: get the hell out and bring the troops home, saving huge amounts of money as just one positive side effect. 3 - re: homes: force the banks to set their assets using mark-to-market, renegotiate mortgages to reflect reality, and let the investors take the losses (remember, the whole bank bailout was based on the banks and investors taking NO losses while the homeowners and taxpayers take ALL the resulting burden). 4 - re: health insurance: single payer, having a side effect of making U.S. businesses more competitive. Or, at the least, no strings on the government's ability to negotiate prices, and also a public option.

Now you can argue that none of the above is achievable. But we don't really know that, since none of the above have actually been tried.

(*)
- Study: 1.2 million households lost to recession
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36231884/ns/business-eye_on_the_economy/t/study-million-households-lost-recession/#.TleiKltEMwk

- Over one Million People Lost their Home in 2008
http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/hotproperty/archives/2009/01/over_one_millio.html

- Housing Crisis Getting Uglier in 2010
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/02/02/eveningnews/main6167610.shtml
"Nationwide, nearly 6 million households have been taken back by the bank in just the past three years - pushing down home values, and leaving some neighborhoods looking like warzones."

[FedUp_Queer]

69. How about you to do this.

Tell me where this administration has stuck to its guns about ANYTHING.

Public Option? Nope.

Importation of Canadian drugs? Nope.

Warrantless wiretapping? Nope.

"Walking the picket lines" with his "comfortable shoes?" Nope.

Gitmo closing? Nope.

Bagram expanding? Yep.

More war? Yep.

Indefinite detention? Yep.

Complete immunity for the government from lawsuits for warrantless wiretapping? Yep.

Civilian trials for terrorist suspects? Nope.

Tax cuts for the rich? Yep.

Leaving the 99ers out in the cold? Yep.

Insufficient stimulus (too many damn tax cuts)? Yep.

More for Wall Street? Yep.

Reevaluating NAFTA, etc.? Nope.

EFCA? Nope.

Ending the tyranny of oil? Nope (we'll see on the tar sands pipeline, but my guess is he will certify to build it).

This "getting things done" meme is just f-ing BS. Throwing crap against my wall is "getting things done." You cannot name one time where he fought for something and lost or fought for something and won, other than Pyrrhic victories (health care for one). Where are the progressive things he ran on that he's actually fought for? Where are the progressive things he's actually fought for?

Sorry, but I'm not going to play Borg to your O(GOP)bama.

[JDPriestly]

109. The Obama administration can't stick to its guns on anything because

it is standing on a foundation of sandy compromise rather than rock-solid values.

Obama will give up anything. There is no line in the sand for him. And the Republicans know this.

Obama is too worried about his personal future and not worried enough about the futures of his fellow Americans.

So far not a one of the politicians who have announced their candidacy for the presidency has shown that he or she really cares about the futures of his fellow Americans. They are all pandering to this or that clique of voters -- some imaginary construct of voters that they think they can persuade to elect them.

And, if Obama is any model, who knows what they will do once they are elected.

That's the game now. Promise them anything. Get elected. And then do what makes your personal friends happy.

We can do better.

[fascisthunter]

71. your reality is accepting corruption and right wing policies

buh bye

[treestar]

95. +1 and there is no pleasing them anyway!

They would just move the goal posts. They are too unreasonable to make any attempt at.

[sabrina 1]

96. Anyone who uses the talking point 'reality based'

a phrase thought up by the rightwing of the Dem Party to attempt to insult anyone who might disagree with the Party's swing to the right, is clearly not thinking for themselves. People who think for themselves, use their own words, not talking points handed to them by political operatives. That phrase wore out years ago. I suggest NOT using it as an insult, it has become a sad remnant of the days when it was easy to scare Democrats because they had not yet seen what a majority of Dems would actually do and Bush was the boogie man. We've all grown up since then.

However since you did use it, I certainly agree that only side is 'reality based'. Group after group, teachers, firemen, the major Unions, Independents, are moving towards being independent of the party they supported for so long and feel betrayed by.

If you refuse to see that reality, and pretend it's just DU, then good luck doing anything to change it.

The Party is responsible, not the voters. All they have to do, as the Unions are saying, is start standing up, and stop making excuses, for the people who elected them.

[JDPriestly]

102. The White House is responsible. True. And that is why

it should be listening to and acting on ideas from all sides.

Unfortunately, Obama never, ever listens to progressives -- not on any issue.

He always listens to conservatives and then capitulates to them. He has no strong progressives among his aides -- no one who speaks out for a point of view other than that of the Bernanke/Geithner/military brass triumvirate. Wall Street and war -- same old, same old.

Nary a new idea --

But we Progressives have new ideas. It isn't a matter of ideological purity. It is a matter of having, knowing, articulating and defending values. Obama seems to act and speak from a basis other than ideals and values.

In fact, over and over, I have asked Obama apologists on DU to explain what values they hold fundamental.

They don't seem to even understand what "values" mean. They talk about being the president of everyone, but to achieve what goals? Just to get re-elected? Is that the highest value for those who support the president?

Does Obama serve and represent your values?

What values does the Obama administration serve? What values do you hold dear?

[rhett o rick]

120. One side are corporatists and one side are the People. It's time to kick the corporatists

out of our party.

[girl gone mad]

129. The "reality based" line is total bullshit.

It isn't "reality based" to push for deficit reduction in the face of mass unemployment and debt deleveraging.

It isn't "reality based" to adopt the neoliberal platform whole cloth when it has clearly failed to the point of causing global unrest.

It isn't "reality based" to side with corrupt banks and parasitic corporations who are hell bent on destroying the economy, and therefore your Presidency.

It isn't "reality based" to make statements along the lines that the government is incapable of creating jobs.

It isn't "reality based" to ignore a debt ceiling limit until such time as it becomes a political hot potato, and then refuse to take a hard line against the small handful of politicians who are pushing 'default by choice'.

etc.

[nashville_brook]

13. i love how they've decided they don't need liberals in order to win this election...

"who needs liberals in the democratic party anyway...we've moved beyond party politics."

[Mr Deltoid]

70. Stupidest political miscalculation in US history

IMHO

[coalition_unwilling]

167. Um, it's definitely stupid all right, but probably not as stupid as

the decision to order P.G.T. Beauregard to fire on Fort Sumter in 1860. I think that wins the award for 'stupidest political miscalculation in US history.' :)

[valerief]

106. They've got Diebold, er, Premier. nt

[Maven]

14. Because they are authoritarians who only happen to be on the Circle D team.

For them, loyalty only goes one way.

[Ken Burch]

15. "the Circle D team".

There does seem to be a weird correlation between being a member of the conservative-authoritarian wing of the party and defending that Godawful logo-the logo under which we've lost every important election since it's creation.

And does anyone else think "Circle D" sounds like the name of the world's lamest dude ranch?

[Joe Fields]

26. More like a convenience store for dummies.

[nxylas]

86. Strange happenings are afoot outside the Circle-D

Be excellent to each other.

[joshcryer]

17. So what did you do today to "try to get the administration to stop doing things...

...that drive progressives (including union workers) away"?

I'll even give you the benefit of the doubt and await your answer rather than throw out a snarky generalization just to win a point or two.

[Arctic Dave]

20. My post to someone like the OP is talking about.

Arctic Dave (1000+ posts) Wed Aug-24-11 08:21 PM
Response to Original message
25. Take it up with Obama or stop whining.

In you haven't noticed, no one here is the President, he is. So if you have misgivings about his chances of reelection maybe you should let him know.

Perception Management, coming to a message board near you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perception_management
Alert | Add to my Journal Printer Friendly | Permalink | Edit | Reply | Top

[Selatius]

21. Because you will lose access to the powerful if you try to hold the powerful accountable.

In terms of maintaining power, it is far better being a simple partisan who tows the party line than one who rocks the boat because there is no threat that you'll lose out on access to the powerful, especially if you feature a pro-business/pro-DLC platform. Why risk losing that position for the sake of liberal causes? This is the logic of it as I see it; I'm not necessarily endorsing it.

I mean, if you really want to boil it down in terms of how the rich see it, they'll simply say, "I'd rather be rich than stupid." Why should the rich sacrifice for a cause that won't make them more money? It's why the Progressive Caucus was basically frozen out of negotiations over the Public Option in the health care bill. I mean, if you're a DLC Democrat or a Blue Dog, and you make nice with the Chamber of Commerce, for instance, you're more likely to have an easier time at re-election and may probably end up landing a nice job after you step down vs. the entire business community funding your opponent to crush you.

[hfojvt]

28. sometimes it does not seem to matter

The Obama administration does thousands of things. The much maligned list is evidence of that. Sometimes it seems like progressives will sift and strain at everything Obama does or says in order to find something to get upset about. We die a thousands deaths and hurl a thousand insults as well over things that we fear (or predict) Obama will do.

I will make a prediction now. I predict that if there was a thread started tomorrow that said "Now Obama is gonna bomb Somalia" that linked to some half-reasoned article quoting an anonymous source within the Obama administration. That it would quickly get 150+ recs and be on the front page of DU and be loaded with replies of people rending their garments and asking "why, FSM, why did we ever vote for this guy?"

Also, like a vindictive lover, we remember and bring back all the previous slights instead of sticking to the issue at hand. There used to be other lists which were beloved here. A laundry list of Obama's failures and betrayals that long time DUers with low post counts would suddenly decide to post, and get DU to sing along like they were Mitch Miller leading us in the "12 Days of the Obama Administration"

On the twelfth day of the Obama administration my true love betrayed me
12 drones a bombing
11 divisions in Iraq
10 DLCers in the cabinent
nein Bush officials prosecuted
8 tax credits in the stimulus
7 days of DADT not ended
6 million dollar CEO bonuses
5 trillion to the banks
4 calling us idiots
3 months and still no single payer
2 moderates on the Court
and
1 prayer by "Pastor" Rick Warren.

Some people have decided (or been persuaded to believe) that Obama is one of the enemy. He's no longer loyal to the Jets. Well, once that happens there's pretty much nothing he can do to win us back.

Especially with a Republican controlled House. Obama has to work with the Congress that is, not the Congress we wish we had. If we cannot pressure our Republican Congresspeople (and I fully admit that I cannot, not in my district and not in my state), or better yet defeat them (which we did not in 2010) then what do we expect him to do?

I think it would be better if he would fight and lose, than to be so pragmatic. For example, he ought to propose, more government spending and a WPA like jobs program. However, that would never pass the House. So he chooses instead to offer trickle down Reaganomics. Much less effective as a stimulus and helps to make America even more unequal, but it has a good chance of passing and it will, admittedly, do SOME good. Which is better? To fight for three meals for a starving person and ultimately get nothing, or to actually win a slice of bread and a glass of water which will do some good?

My way, Obama and Democrats may win more elections (or may not as big money might fight even harder). Obama's way another 300,000 or so Americans get jobs. Aren't they much better off? Isn't helping them better than just thinking about elections?

Also, for some of the problems, I think DU makes things worse. As I said in this post, we ought to be educating the public about the value of liberal policies. Instead, we are hung up on people. We love to bash those Republican candidates, and also the sold out Democrats. Meanwhile, nobody is bringing a progressive message to the masses of voters.

"Look, I share a desire to move both Obama and the Democratic Party to the left. I really do, but I don't think a strategy of constantly castigating them for not being progressive enough is a way to accomplish that. I think that if people came to DU and got information, they might walk away thinking "wow, single payer really is better" or "wow, Reaganomics really does suck (if I may put forward my own not so humble attempts in this regard http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/126 ). Instead they walk away thinking things like "wow, Obama and Democrats really do suck (thus why bother electing them)" or "wow, liberals really are arrogant and hateful". It seems to me we are our own worst enemy in moving the country in the right direction."

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/127

[Fumesucker]

51. I tried bringing a progressive message personally to people I know IRL in 2008..

That has backfired spectacularly on me, many of the people I spoke with in 2008 are now pointing to Obama's actions and contrasting them against my earlier words.

I've eaten a mighty boatload of crow IRL over Obama's actions, don't lecture me about bringing a "progressive message" to the people.

[hfojvt]

61. the progressive message should be about policies though

not about people. Obama, or Edwards (who was the candidate that I really wanted before he dropped out and I switched to Obama) may let us down through their personal foibles or their seeming unwillingness to propose or fight for progressive legislation, but that does not refudiate the progressive message itself. The people who voted in all those Republicans to Congress did not want to replace Obama with Kucinich, they wanted to replace him with Palin. They did not want him to be more progressive.

[Fumesucker]

64. What do you think I was talking about?

I was talking about the policies Obama would advocate as president, not his personal characteristics.

[bvar22]

99. Exactly!

I live in a very poor rural area.
I told many of my friends and neighbors that by voting FOR Obama, they would get a Public Option,
and that the Public Option would be just like being able to buy Medicare.

Most families here have someone on Medicare,
and almost everybody would LIKE to have Medicare.

I told them that voting for Democrats would mean more money in their pockets,
and the RICH will have to start paying their Fair Share.

I gave many traditional republicans permission to vote FOR the Democrats,
and many told me they did so for the first time in their lives.
I was much more effective in changing minds here in rural Arkansas
than I was in Deep Blue Minneapolis.

Since then, I've had to eat my words of 2008 too many times.
I'm OUT of It for 2012.



Who will STAND and FIGHT for THIS American Majority?
The UNIONS WILL!!

You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.

Solidarity!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[hfojvt]

115. hmm, as it turned out, Arkansas was the only state where Obama

did worse than Kerry. Of course, that was the Hillary effect, and not the racism that some people think it was.

And the truth is that Obama and the Democrats DID put more money in their pockets, at least if they still have a job, and even if they don't, the Obama stimulus was much better in creating jobs than the Republican stimulus would have been. Republicans proposed another big tax break for rich people, and voted against the "Making work pay" credit.

If those people want the rich to pay more taxes, then they shouldn't vote Republican and they shouldn't sit out the election and allow Republicans to win, like the Republican who won the Senate race there.

And it was Republicans who fought and killed the public option, and they were rewarded for it in 2010.

[bvar22]

126. Trying to wish away the trouble by reciting Bullet Points on "The Stimulus"

...really doesn't cover up for Obama shoveling TRILLIONS to Wall Street.
They SAW the pictures of THAT.
Not very many people here saw $$$$ from "The Stimulus",
and, in reality, things are WORSE here than they were in 2008,
not better.

[hfojvt]

131. I guess the Bush plan worked then

Sure things are worse almost everywhere than they were in 2008. They'd be even worse if the financial system had collapsed (Republicans also voted for TARP) and they'd be even worse if either a) the stimulus hadn't passed or b) the Republican version of the stimulus had passed.

That nobody saw $$ from the stimulus just means they were not paying attention. Almost every working person got the making work pay credit of $400 per person or $800 for a couple.

The stimulus was a good idea. The only problems with it, was, it should have been bigger or, there should have been another round of it. For you to be dissing the stimnulus just flies in the face of the facts and shows the effectiveness of Republican talking points and the Republican trashing of the economy that they blamed Obama for http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/155

[muffin1]

134. +

I feel like running and hiding whenever I run into someone I spoke to about voting for Obama in 2008. Occasionally, I speak to a Republican (my dad, a couple of petsitting clients, my ex-boss), and they always ask what I think of Obama now. Then I lapse into some lame statement about how I'm not all that happy - but not for the same reasons they're not happy. They call him a Socialist - god, I only WISH he was.

K&R

[JoeyT]

62. +1

I talked everyone I know that isn't an outright teabagger into voting for Obama. I doubt they'll be listening to me anytime soon since he was lying about everything I hammered on to convince them. You know, NAFTA, public option, being willing to fight for public schools and social programs, etc.

We brought a progressive message to the people, it's what got him elected. Then he personally shit all over that progressive message, so bringing a progressive message to the people won't have anything to do with him or getting him elected.

[hfojvt]

117. yeah that does not make any sense though

The people who elected all those Republicans in 2010, did not do so because they wanted Obama and the Democrats to be more progressive. Quite the opposite.

As for the large majority that elected him, I don't know what happened to them in 2010. The fact is that probably a lot of them only vote every 4 years, if that, just like a lot of the McCain voters. Except this time, the McCain voters were fired up and all went to the polls.

[zalinda]

128. No, they didn't want to go right, they wanted change.

It's a case of 'throw the bums out'.

People are so desperate that they are trying any thing they can to get change. I have said all along the the Teabag party were not all crazy repubs, they were angry people. People get to a point that all they respond to is raw emotion rather than words. Fear of losing everything that you've worked your entire life for, is not something that you can intelligently process, it's visceral.

zalinda

[bvar22]

148. Exactly!

It wasn't a mandate FOR Republican Policies, as the TeaBag Republicans are NOW learning.

It WAS a "You fucking LIED to me, so NOW
You're FIRED!" thing.
And we WILL see a lot more of this in 2012.
Things are fixing to get BAD all over,
unless the Democratic Party has a Harry Truman Epiphany before the election.

"I've seen it happen time after time. When the Democratic candidate allows himself to be put on the defensive and starts apologizing for the New Deal and the Fair Deal, and says he really doesn't believe in them, he is sure to lose. The people don't want a phony Democrat. If it's a choice between a genuine Republican, and a Republican in Democratic clothing, the people will choose the genuine article, every time; that is, they will take a Republican before they will a phony Democrat, and I don't want any phony Democratic candidates in this campaign."
---President Harry Truman

QED:2010

Leadership! "The Buck Stops HERE!" NO Excuses!

...but I don't see a Harry Truman Epiphany happening for the leadership of the Democratic Party..
The owners of the "Centrist" Democrats are well pleased with the return on their investment.
Its only the other 98% who are still hurting.

The Centrists/3rd Way/DLC/ New Democrats would rather see a Republican in office protecting their wealth
than a REAL Democrat who would level the playing field.







You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.

Solidarity!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[SwampG8r]

30. they dont get that

they are playing "politics" so it is more important to them that the team they are on,in this game the (D)'s,wins
nothing except "winning" counts
you and i unfortunately must live "politics" so i dont have the luxury of picking a "team" to support
if i support something it has to be because it makes a difference to me
its not as important to me that everyone thinks my "team" "won"
as it is having my principles represented.

[Quantess]

34. I agree. Why should I support a republican, just because he calls himself a democrat?

Actions speak louder than words.

Obama really has done some positive things for this country. I won't deny that. But he mostly just goes along with the RWers.

[Enthusiast]

36. I have the impression that those

insisting on loyalty to Obama no matter what are being disingenuous. Sorry, just a GUT feeling.

[JoePhilly]

44. Maybe you should take a tums.

[Divernan]

56. Whoosh to you too, oh grand master of Snark!

[rucky]

38. Their stand for bipartisanship is sorta radical.

or at least authoritarian in nature. The only way they see it can work to our advantage is if we show a unified front for it.

The only way progressives can do that would be to roll over - and many of us won't (myself included).

[mmonk]

40. Same 'ol same 'ol. "Where are they going go?"

Home.

[Divernan]

57. To write in a real Democrat for Pres. and work for progressives further down the ticket.

[scheming daemons]

41. The administration is faced with an intransigent opposition party and

Can either stay ideologically pure and get nothing at all done or try to make deals and get SOME good done.

What progressives should be doing is working to eradicate that intransigent opposition party instead of attacking those that would rather get 50% of what they want instead of staying "pure" and getting 0%.

If someone like DK were president, absolutely nothing would have been accomplished in the face of GOP obstruction... nothing at all.

[boston bean]

46. problem is democrats throw little opposition against the opposition party.

They just throw up their hands and say..

Hey, we can't get anything done because of them. Well that is pure fuckin bull shit.

Democrats hold the Presidency and the Senate and at one time for two years held all three.

[Fumesucker]

52. "The administration is faced with an intransigent opposition party"

Yes, we know..

And the only way to get things done is to do them the intransigent party's way.

Thank you for making it abundantly clear you understand that.

[scheming daemons]

80. No... we need to eradicate taht intransigent party in the elections

"drown them in the bathtub" so to speak.

[Divernan]

58. Amazing! You see no middle ground between ideological purity and craven pandering/caving to big $$$

[scheming daemons]

81. We've been getting that middle ground

That's why we have a Health Care law that has a lot of good in it and some bad.

That's why we have a Dodd-Frank financial reform law that has a lot of good in it and some bad.

That's why we got a stimulus that kept the economy from falling off the cliff in 2009, but haven't been able to do more to grow the economy since.



There have been lots of measures that have done SOME good... but not all the way to what we've needed.


That *IS* the middle ground. What we had under Bush was all the way the other way 0%.... now we're getting 50% good, 50% bad roughly.

[FedUp_Queer]

74. BULLSHIT.

Name one time, he even tried to fight for ANYTHING progressive.

This is not a case of "we fought hard and lost." This is a case of "we didn't even try" and ended up settling for less.

[muffin1]

135. That's the thing for me, too.

If Obama was fighting his ass off and losing anyway, I'd still be fighting MY ass off for him. But he's not even trying most of the time. In fact, he even uses their talking points - shared sacrifice, entitlement (as if entitlements are a bad thing) reform - and praises them for fucking him (and us) over - "they're acting in good faith!" "I have no doubt they'll do what's best for the country".

[LondonReign2]

75. The problem isn't that we are only getting 50% of what we want

The problem is that we are only getting 2% of what we want, and on top of that Obama throws in SS for good measure.

We'd be ecstatic if we were getting 50% and Obama was actually fighting for the other 50% but losing.

[scheming daemons]

83. Health Care Reform was a lot more than 2% of what we want.... as was Dodd-Frank

And... despite what Boehner claims... as was the recent debt deal. We got a debt ceiling increase, we got SS off the table, we got protections for Medicare beneficiaries.

But we lost some things too.


That's 50%.

[librechik]

87. I'd be happy with Obama if he fought for us and lost 100% of the time

Just deciding in advance we're going to lose and then compromising way more than necessary is the problem I have with them.

[bvar22]

101. In 2008, The American People gave the Democratic Party:

*The White House

*BIG Majorities in The House

*A Filibuster-Proof Majority in The Senate

*a dying Republican party

*And MOST Importantly, a HUGE Popular MANDATE for "CHANGE",
and an ARMY Standing in the Streets!

Now WHAT was your Excuse again?

You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.


Leadership! "The Buck Stops HERE!" NO Excuses!


Solidarity!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Divernan]

141. Progressive Democrats are faced with an intransigent Trojan Horse in the Oval Office.

[woo me with science]

143. Oh puh-leeze.

His behavior speaks for itself.

At a certain point people resent being taken for fools. :eyes:

[Ken Burch]

156. You don't eradicate the GOP by nominating Blue Dogs

or fighting(as Obama and Rahm did)to stop primary challenges against the mangiest of the Dogs.

[ProSense]

42. Statement by AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka on Posting of Labor Rights

Statement by AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka on Posting of Labor Rights

We applaud the National Labor Relations Board's issuance of the rule requiring employers to post a notice in their workplaces notifying employees of their rights. The rule is a responsible and much-needed step. Just as employers are required to notify their employees of their rights around health and safety, wages, and discrimination on the job, this rule gives clear information to employees about their rights under this fundamental labor law so that workers are better equipped to exercise and enforce them.

It's posted here, but as usual it's being ignored.

[Name removed]

59. Deleted message

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

[ConservativeDemocrat]

68. So according to you...

...linking to facts is now considered "spin"?

If you want to know why hard leftists' letters and opinions are ignored by Democratic politicians, this is a perfect example. They ignore facts.

If President Obama acted like he was President of the Democratic Underground instead of President of the United States of America, he wouldn't be President of the United States of America. And Sarah Palin would be Vice President of the United States of America.

Or Hillary would be President - and you'd hate her even worse.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[LondonReign2]

78. President of Democratic Underground?

Nah, we just want President Obama to stand for what Candidate Obama stood for.

[bvar22]

103. Anyone who proudly "claims" to be a member of "The Reality Based Community"

isn't.

If they were,
they wouldn't feel the need to post that claim.



You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.

Solidarity!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Rex]

88. It wasn't ignored and has nothing to do with this OP.

Try harder. :eyes:

[JoePhilly]

43. Impossible task.

A nice chunk of the anti-Obama crowd is angered by anything he does, or doesn't do, says, or doesn't say.

As a recent example, let's take Libya. Here on DU their are 2 anti-Obama views from the left.

In the first, the uprising in Libya is a BAD thing, and clearly, Obama over-reached his power, and started another WAR, with the intent to steal the Libyan oil.

In the second, the uprising in Libya is a GOOD thing, but Obama played absolutely no role in helping bring it about.

These two totally opposite attacks on Obama come from the left, one claiming he did too much, the other claiming he didn't do anything ... oddly, they live together here on DU quite happily.

Far too frequently, OPs post part of something Obama said, and place it in a negative light, and then complain that he didn't say something else. Then you go read what he actually said, and he did say that which the OP claims he did not.

I find there is no reason for me to post an OP criticizing Obama because it would be redundant, and my version would lack sufficient vitriol to generate many responses.

[NorthCarolina]

45. Ummm...maybe because they are Stealth Conservatives like Obama? nt

[boston bean]

47. That thought has crossed my mind on more than one occassion.

Republicans embarassed with their own party, so they invaded and took over the Democratic Party.

[NorthCarolina]

48. That, or simply third-way conservative Dems working to tamp down any Progressivism

that may arise within the Democratic Party. From my perspective there's only a hairs breadth difference between the typical GOP'er and the third-way DLC New Dems when it comes to goals and ideology.

[Romulox]

49. Because "compromise" means "doing stuff Rightwingers and rich guys want."

There is absolutely NO SENSE that the "sensible centrists" and their financiers are ever required themselves to "compromise".

[Mr Deltoid]

72. Compromise means implementing Bush style RW policies

The very same policies that crashed the economy in the first place. Obama better start communicating with Democrats and standing up the GOP very, very soon otherwise I fear he is toast in 2012.

[whathehell]

60. Precisely. Someone should tell the prez and his team:

"With all due respect, It is not we who have to please you,

It is you who has to please us".

That shouldn't be hard to understand.:eyes:

[Iggo]

63. Go Team!!!

[NNN0LHI]

67. How much mutual loyalty have you seen exhibited toward UAW members on this board?

[Ken Burch]

139. Sadly, very little.

But Obama wasn't helping them, either.

[NNN0LHI]

142. Are you trying to suggest that before Obama became president it was better around here?

He has only been president for about two and a half years. How was it before then?

Don

[Ken Burch]

155. Not better. Just not all that different.

And yes, sometimes you have to settle for part of a loaf...but you NEVER have to tell the base "This is ALL of the loaf you're ever gonna get". What he was supposed to do was say "this is what we got today...the fight to get the rest starts TOMORROW! And we'll fight in 2010 to get rid of the people who made us settle for this now.".

Had he handled the compromises that way, everything would be better.

[Rex]

76. Because then they would have to DO something besides

sit on their couch and whine 24/7 on the Internets? Some are plants and are working very hard at dividing up the Democratic party.

[scheming daemons]

85. This

[Aerows]

110. No

It's more "You want a pony" patronizing BS, instead of, "Okay, yes, the administration really should be more receptive to your position."

Patronizing people isn't going to get you *anywhere*, and neither is condescension. What it will do instead is drive people away, as you are currently seeing. The Obama train is perilously close to becoming derailed if the best you have is "STFU and GTFO of the party if you don't support this one politician."

That's reality, my friend, that's not spin. I'm as tired of people that are overly-protective of Obama as I am of people that are overly-critical. He's a politician that gets paid VERY well to take on that criticism. He asked people to hold his feet to the fire - do you think that happens without criticism?

[Aerows]

108. I posted this before I even read your response.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1816128#1820114

:rofl:

[Rex]

165. HA!

:rofl:

[frylock]

116. as soon as somebody DOES something besides sit on their couch and whine..

they are widely condemned. look at cindy sheehan. she's just a publicity whore according to the Very Sensible People. the same with medea benjamin.

[WillyT]

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

:hi:

:kick:

[Corruption Winz]

91. Loyalty goes both ways...

However, the base has to take the lions share of the blame. At the end of the day, we need to elect the right people. Power in numbers, after all.

[zalinda]

130. Rahm helped the cause

He made sure no anti-war candidates were on the dem ticket in 2006, and every one was aware of it in DC. Now you know why there are so many DINOS.

zalinda

[Kingofalldems]

92. Can I say this? Some so-called Democrats

would rather form an alliance with republicans than with loyal union people, who come out and vote every election.

[Ken Burch]

163. And the thing is, it's not an "alliance"

At this point, Obama is just obeying Boehner. And that's where it's going to stay.

[treestar]

94. Because we are not your slaves?

You just assume a right to be obeyed.

Reality is not optional. You are not in a position to order others around.

[Ken Burch]

162. I can't believe you'd actually use the word "slaves" in an Obama discussion

Also, people like you aren't the sole arbiters of "reality".

[treestar]

166. Why not, you seem to feel entitled

To have your world view advocated by us all.

You treat us like we were slaves of yourself. We aren't.

[Ken Burch]

168. That is a completely absurd response to what I've posted.

I don't treat you like a slave and have never tried to force anyone to agree with me. Chill.

[a2liberal]

104. Probably because they're not progressive

and are therefore really happy with the corporatist/DLC/Third Way policies of the administration and don't want to see them change? Remember that the DLC technically was and Third Way technically is a Democratic group. It's the unfortunate peril/downside to being the "big tent"party and a result of the open-minded nature of progressives -- we don't feel comfortable excluding people by our nnature.

[Aerows]

107. Don't expect a response other than

"You just want a pony. If you want a pony, you have to get off the couch and advocate for a pony, and you aren't going to get a pony anyway, so STFU."

[DaveJ]

112. It's a shame we forget what it's like having a Republican in office

We have to go back and experience it again and again to be reminded. It's like the human brain just can't remember.

[Ken Burch]

140. What we have now is less than half different than a Republican

We've got austerity budgets and wars. The only progressive things are tiny bits of stuff that don't help anyone. There haven't been any BIG changes, and it's now clear that Obama never wanted things to be different.

[scheming daemons]

146. Oh horseshit.. There are so many tangible differences between Obama and Bush that you are being

ridiculous to spout such nonsense.


I'll start with this one:

We have an administration that respects the Scientific Method. Whether it is stem cells, the environment, medicine, evolution, etc.... that's one HUGE difference.

And I'll add this one:

We have a President that is respected outside this country instead of loathed.

[colsohlibgal]

114. Why Not Indeed.

Love Stpehanie Miller, I even pay for her "Steph Cast". But she defends Obama no matter what. She says he needs to skew to the middle and not toward the far left. She is a comedian but you would hope she'd have more depth. The truth is that what's the "center" now would have been pretty far right in the recent past. The baseline continues to skew right.

Unless people dig and research they are largely in the dark but don't know it, so many think they're getting the real scoop from MSN and that's far from the case. There are so many huge stories out there that get no light of day from the corporate media.

If people go to http://www.projectcensored.org/ they will see lots of stories that are either not reported on or are way under reported.

The sad truth is that the US is no longer a democracy, it's an oligarchy and it's getting worse.

[Ken Burch]

137. If the middle is what used to be far right, then it helps nothing for a Democrat to skew right.

Can't you see that all Obama does by skewing to this "middle" is to keep the rightward swing going?

[Honeycombe8]

118. Difference 'tween "attacking" and pointing out reality...Obama is the only game in town.

Criticize, yes. Talk about a challenger, finding someone who is progressive...nonsense. Obama..is...it. Like it or not, and apparently you don't like it. I'm not crazy about it, either.

But stop saying he is anti-YOUR cause. Just because he didn't give you the pony that YOU want does not mean he's not a good Democrat or hasn't done some great Democratic things, because he most definitely has.

EVERY American is disappointed in this President for one reason or another.

Why don't you try posting a post that is based in reality, pointing out not just what YOU don't like, but also pointing out what GOOD he has done. Otherwise, your post is just a whiney post.

[rhett o rick]

122. Yeah we get it, "Sit down and shut up". F that shit. nm

[Ken Burch]

136. The "pony" thing has always been bullshit.

Stop using that term. Nobody was ever asking for special privileges or behaving like a child.

And no. Obama isn't the only game in town. Or, at the least, we don't have to just follow him and not ask anything of him, like you do. Obama on Obama's terms doesn't have to be the only game in town.

And the things he has done that were progressive were always just tiny increments. There haven't been any genuine BIG victories. The healthcare bill had only trivial gains in it at the end(the pre-existing condition language and the ban on recission were meaningless without the imposition of price controls. The finance reform bill had nothing left in it that mattered. And without EFCA, there were no meaningful gains for people who work for a living.

Nothing that's small and uncontroversial is progressive. Because no small change actually helps anyone. Only big change matters.

[sabrina 1]

151. Ponies, you mean like protecting SS for the elderly

and disabled, who as Bernie Sanders points out, have already lost under this president. Keeping old people from starving is a pony? I want that pony, even thought it's not for me personally. Sorry about that!

Or would you call prosecuting the Wall St. criminals and getting back some of the money they stole, 'a pony'?


I'm not sure if you know this, but these talking points, 'ponies, martyrs, magic wands, reality based community, whiners, professional leftists, firebaggers etc etc are not taken seriously since they were thought up to be used against anyone who refuses to support Republican ideas. I wish people would use their own words instead of bought-and-paid-for language that is intended to silence people. Especially since it doesn't work.

[patrice]

121. I don't understand how it is that you know what "those Dems" are or are not doing.

This is one of my objections to the FALSE dichotomy that has developed between us.

I can and do disagree fundamentally with strategic effects of some people's positions regarding the President; that doesn't stop me one bit in regard to my attitude towards my responsibilities as a Liberal activist.

[patrice]

123. Why isn't this a thread attacking other Du -ers? Just curious, here. nt

[abq e streeter]

127. YES !

[SaveAmerica]

144. I don't like when a group wants only one side to compromise, that's get's tiresome.

[swilton]

145. Touche!

[McCamy Taylor]

149. I think some of them want to, but they feel that Obama is being persecuted unfairly for

several reasons, the major one being race, and so they feel that it is more important to show solidarity. Recall that a number of women took attacks against Hillary (especially those involving words like witch, bitch and cunt) perosnally, because they perceived (correctly) that these were sexism based attacks. Hillary did not develop her near cult following until New Hampshire when Edwards and Obama ganged up on her. And the more sexist attacks Dems threw at her, the more those who are most sensitive to sexist attacks elevated her to goddess status.

[Pisces]

153. 55 million people voted for Obama, all with different ideas. He could not possibly please

everyone or get everyone their purple pony. Voting for him does not mean you own him or that he is obligated to fulfill your every waking dream.

[Ken Burch]

161. None of them could really have wanted him to be this far to the right

n/t.

[certainot]

154. unions suck, unions workers are lazy parasites, bottom feeders- that's

what team limbaugh hannity say all day for 20 years from 1000 radio stations and why the fuck has there never been a union protest at a right wing radio station, where the groundwork for the union bashing and busting is done every day and the corporate masters have their biggest megaphones?

why all the complaining about obama when that shit is going on at the local RW radio stations all day? that is the single biggest reason we're in this disaster- the left ignores the right's best weapon. then attacks obama.

hey unions, there are many limbaugh radio stations in every state to protest at- if you can't get your own back don't expect obama to do it.

[Name removed]

157. Deleted message

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

[supraTruth]

159. Can U say "NADER?"

[Ken Burch]

160. no...I can't

And we're past the Ralph thing now anyway. The guy doesn't matter anymore.