Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
17 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Obama supporters say electing a Republican would be worse. (Original Post) ProSense Apr 2012 OP
Of course it would be worse, MadHound Apr 2012 #1
Actually, ProSense Apr 2012 #2
And some believe Reagan should be up there as well, MadHound Apr 2012 #3
Well, ProSense Apr 2012 #4
Imagine how republicans feel about electing Romney. Walk away Apr 2012 #8
It WOULD be worse electing a republican. Zax2me Apr 2012 #5
Imagine if we had a Republican President. woo me with science Apr 2012 #6
Yes ProSense Apr 2012 #7
I'm not so sure it's true. Marr Apr 2012 #9
We have certainly trashed the unified opposition, woo me with science Apr 2012 #10
Yep. Marr Apr 2012 #14
So ProSense Apr 2012 #11
I think my point was plain enough. Marr Apr 2012 #12
Your point ProSense Apr 2012 #15
I doubt either of us is going to convince the other. Marr Apr 2012 #16
No, not ProSense Apr 2012 #17
It would be worse MrBig Apr 2012 #13
 

MadHound

(34,179 posts)
1. Of course it would be worse,
Sat Apr 7, 2012, 05:05 PM
Apr 2012

Doesn't mean that re-electing Obama would be a good thing. That whole lesser of two evils thing ya know. Wouldn't it be nice to actually deal with good again?

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
4. Well,
Sat Apr 7, 2012, 05:13 PM
Apr 2012

"And some believe Reagan should be up there as well...Your point?"

...maybe it means that like Reagan, Obama sucks? Still, perspective is everything.



Walk away

(9,494 posts)
8. Imagine how republicans feel about electing Romney.
Sat Apr 7, 2012, 05:37 PM
Apr 2012

He's a Mormon Bishop who created Obama Care. That a bigger leap than President Obama who is the most progressive President in 40 years.

 

Marr

(20,317 posts)
9. I'm not so sure it's true.
Sat Apr 7, 2012, 05:44 PM
Apr 2012

In the short term, sure-- at least in terms of rhetoric. But the long term is another question.

When a politician wins an election, he or she has, by definition, employed a winning strategy. Their successors will naturally take their cues from previous elections when setting their own strategies. So every time we vote for corporate Democrats, we encourage the very rightward slide that we all complain about.

woo me with science

(32,139 posts)
10. We have certainly trashed the unified opposition,
Sat Apr 7, 2012, 05:49 PM
Apr 2012

and that is precisely the benefit of purchasing two parties.

 

Marr

(20,317 posts)
14. Yep.
Sat Apr 7, 2012, 06:18 PM
Apr 2012

I don't know that this will ever turn around, either. The American public seems to me (contrary to our cherished little myth), incredibly docile and submissive to authority. We don't seem the sort of people to decide en masse to tell the boss to go to hell.

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
11. So
Sat Apr 7, 2012, 05:53 PM
Apr 2012
I'm not so sure it's true. In the short term, sure-- at least in terms of rhetoric. But the long term is another question.

When a politician wins an election, he or she has, by definition, employed a winning strategy. Their successors will naturally take their cues from previous elections when setting their own strategies. So every time we vote for corporate Democrats, we encourage the very rightward slide that we all complain about.

...voting for Republicans helps to move the country left? Are you saying that a Romney Presidency will help in say...2020?

Flawed logic.

 

Marr

(20,317 posts)
12. I think my point was plain enough.
Sat Apr 7, 2012, 06:11 PM
Apr 2012

In any single election, our choice is between racing to the right, and ambling to the right. We're not going to fix anything with short-term thinking, or one or two elections.

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
15. Your point
Sat Apr 7, 2012, 06:28 PM
Apr 2012

"In any single election, our choice is between racing to the right, and ambling to the right. We're not going to fix anything with short-term thinking, or one or two elections."

...reinforces the OP, which is that "racing to the right" is worse than "ambling to the right"

It also lacks perspective.

In fact, I'd argue that when it comes to the health care law, most people aren't taking the long view, which is positive.

Why Republicans are So Intent on Killing Health Care Reform

by Richard Kirsch

It’s not just about expanded care. It’s about proving our government can be a force for the common good.

Why are John Boehner, Eric Cantor and Mitch McConnell so intent on stopping health care reform from ever taking hold? For the same reason that Republicans and the corporate Right spent more than $200 million in the last year to demonize health care in swing Congressional districts. It wasn’t just about trying to stop the bill from becoming law or taking over Congress. It is because health reform, if it takes hold, will create a bond between the American people and government, just as Social Security and Medicare have done. Democrats, and all those who believe that government has a positive place in our lives, should remember how much is at stake as Republicans and corporate elites try to use their electoral victory to dismantle the new health care law.

My enjoyment of the MLB playoffs last month was interrupted by ads run by Karl Rove’s Crossroads front group against upstate New York Rep. Scott Murphy, who was defeated last Tuesday. Rove’s ads rained accusations on Murphy, including the charge of a “government takeover of health care.” Some might have thought that once the public option was removed from the health care legislation, Republicans couldn’t make that charge. But it was never tied to the public option or any other specific reform. Republicans and their allies, following the advice of message guru Frank Luntz, were going to call whatever Democrats proposed a government takeover.

There’s nothing new here. Throughout American history, health care reform has been attacked as socialist. An editorial published in the Journal of the American Medical Association in December 1932, just after FDR’s election, claimed that proposals for compulsory insurance “were socialism and communism — inciting to revolution.” The PR firm that the American Medical Association hired to fight Truman’s push for national health insurance succeeded in popularizing a completely concocted quote that it attributed to Vladimir Lenin: “Socialized medicine is the keystone to the arch of the Socialist State.”

<...>

President Obama and Democrats in Congress understood the historical importance and profound moral underpinnings of the new health care law when they enacted it earlier this year. And they knew that the right-wing attack had soured the public in swing Congressional districts and states on reform. They stood up then. They will have to stand up again, understanding that if they give way to Republicans, they lose more than the expansion of health coverage. They lose the best opportunity in half a century to prove to Americans that government can be a force for the common good.

http://www.newdeal20.org/2010/11/08/why-republicans-are-so-intent-on-killing-health-care-reform-26298/


The Long Moral View
http://prospect.org/article/long-moral-view



 

Marr

(20,317 posts)
16. I doubt either of us is going to convince the other.
Sat Apr 7, 2012, 06:47 PM
Apr 2012

But I've got to tell you, calling Obama's health insurance reform something that proves government can do right is fairly laughable. It's built around the idea that the corporate sector will do things more efficiently than government.

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
17. No, not
Sat Apr 7, 2012, 06:58 PM
Apr 2012
I doubt either of us is going to convince the other.

But I've got to tell you, calling Obama's health insurance reform something that proves government can do right is fairly laughable. It's built around the idea that the corporate sector will do things more efficiently than government.

...really. I mean, while the plan builds on the employer-based health care model, the reforms also strengthened Medicare, giving seniors free preventive care for the first time ever, and achieved the largest expansion of Medicaid since the 1960s.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002496395

Improvements built into the law will make additional improvements (a public option or Medicare buy in) more efficient.

Simply put, the law isn't all about insurance companies.

MrBig

(640 posts)
13. It would be worse
Sat Apr 7, 2012, 06:13 PM
Apr 2012

If nothing else, for Supreme Court nominations, which are grossly undervalued in elections.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Obama supporters say elec...