Skip to main content

View Diary: Hey White House, may I ask for something? (248 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Nobody said the GOP made them do it. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Lying eyes

    They said it was a Republican idea.

    And anyway, you sat down and whined in 2010. You ceded the power to influence the White House to the Right (undoubtedly because you're convinced that you can do more from your soapbox).  

    Enjoy your biscuit.

    •  Ahh...so now the Professional Left (29+ / 0-)

      that actually went out and voted while stating facts, and calling out the same nonsense we are seeing now, is to blame for 2010...and will be for 2014..

      If it makes you feel better...

      "Small Businesses Don't Build Levees" - Melissa Harris Perry

      by justmy2 on Thu Apr 11, 2013 at 10:50:37 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I'm sending you a private message. nt (0+ / 0-)
      •  Private message him to stop lying... (17+ / 0-)

        ... while you are at it.

        Even Meteor Blades is HR'ing these asshats for spreading this slanderous malicious lie about who "sat down" in the 2010 midterms.

        Liberals Aren't To Blame for the 2010 Midterms you asshats

        *The administration has done virtually nothing designed to reward its partisans. - Kos 8/31/10*

        by Rick Aucoin on Thu Apr 11, 2013 at 11:11:47 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  They're shifting away from this (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Rick Aucoin, tb mare, chuckvw, roadbear

          because we can disprove it. I think we may have finally killed that meme, Rick. It's only a small victory, because they're shifting to "You bad liberals, you didn't do enough GOTV because you weren't enthusiastic enough, and WE LOST!" But nonetheless, I think we may have killed the "You Damn Hippies Didn't Vote and WE LOST!" meme.

          if necessary for years; if necessary, alone

          by SouthernLiberalinMD on Thu Apr 11, 2013 at 12:28:05 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Yeah, I've noticed a little movement on this. (3+ / 0-)

            See how this guy posted "Democrats didn't show up" so he can cover his ass, though the dog whistle is the same as the old "liberals sat out 2010" canard.

            Don't worry, though.  They're already saying we're to blame for the 2014 midterm loss of the Senate.  We're already depressing turnout because we're pissed off about the Obama Administration proposing to cut Social Security and all of the other horrific nonsense this Administration is working towards.

            I kid you not.  I've seen the comments already, around here, from all of the Usual Suspects of the cheertroll brigade.

            *The administration has done virtually nothing designed to reward its partisans. - Kos 8/31/10*

            by Rick Aucoin on Thu Apr 11, 2013 at 12:32:21 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  It's not that Dems/Liberals didn't show up (0+ / 0-)

              It's that so  many more Rep/Conservatives DID show up.  In 2006, the GOP base was dispondent over the Iraq war, and the fact that the Left had basically won the war on framing the Bush presidency.  The Left was hyper-energized.  They had something to vote for (regaining Congress), and something to vote against (Bush).

              In 2010, the Dem base was dispondent.  HCR was a disappointing compromise that it almost felt like the GOP won.  The economy and UE sucked.  The shine was seriously off Obama.  The Tea Party was hyper-energized.  They had something to vote for (Regaining Congress), and something to vote against (Obama).

              If this scenario plays out, how can you see any other outcome than the GOP holds the House and gets real close to the Senate takeover?  The GOP will vote for (retaking the Senate) and against (Obama).  Dems will vote for (OK, maybe the long shot of retaking the House), and against (what, Boehner?  Wall Street?).  The great unwashed don't even know who Boehner is, and they don't even know what Wall Street does.  Without something to vote against, which is a far greater motivator than voting for something, most voters just stay home in midterms.

              •  Yes, having something to vote FOR is important. (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                SouthernLiberalinMD, raboof, HCKAD

                And blaming the 2010 midterms on liberals not turning out, or the "professional left" for driving down liberal turnout, or any of a dozen other bullshit excuses that have been trotted out by the Usual Suspect Cheertrolls, has kept any real accounting from being done of exactly why turnout for the D's wasn't MORE up, why more independents voted R than in 2006, why more white women voted R than D than in 2006 and so forth.

                Since the Obama Administration came in with a huge mandate in 08, then squandered it playing bi-partisan "I'll take him at his word" footsy with the Republicans, and sold us all out to the insurance companies with their Health Insurance Reform deal, typical voters were pretty damn discouraged, compared to what they'd been told to expect by Candidate Obama and his campaign.

                But if half the post-mortem is about the damn Professional Left blah blah blah, and the other half of the post-mortem is trying to correct the zombie lie that won't die, then there's never any real attention given to the real problems shown in the 2010 midterms.

                The same problems, I'm saying right now for the record, we'll see in 2014.

                Namely, the Administration is showing itself consistently to be a Washington DC Business As Usual sort of group of people, which isn't what we were all supposed to Hope for, and it sure as hell isn't the Change we voted for in 08.

                *The administration has done virtually nothing designed to reward its partisans. - Kos 8/31/10*

                by Rick Aucoin on Thu Apr 11, 2013 at 02:38:34 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  can't vote against Wall St unless (0+ / 0-)

                the Democrats are against Wall St, and most of em look like they're not.

                if necessary for years; if necessary, alone

                by SouthernLiberalinMD on Thu Apr 11, 2013 at 04:10:44 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  deosn't seem to (3+ / 0-)

            understand what 'disingenuous' means, either.
            I don't mind the cheerleader aspect, because that means I can ignore hir.

          •  I don't blame the professional left for the (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            sjduskin, catilinus

            '10 midterms.  at all.

            I used to, and yes I saw the numbers which debunked it, which set me straight.

            honestly though I used to laugh hard at the opposing memes:  

            -the angriest folks on here speak for all Dems

            -the angriest folks on here can't move the needle even a little, as regards turnout

            This comment is dedicated to my mellow Adept2U and his Uncle Marcus

            by mallyroyal on Thu Apr 11, 2013 at 01:34:08 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  If we "can't move the needle" what (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Rick Aucoin

              was all that stuff in '06 and '08? Who built the movement out of the darkness of '02 and '04 and climbed the long, hard road back up into the light? Who gave the money, knocked on the doors, endured the heat and cold?

              Give you a clue:  it wasn't centrists. It started with Dean and Kerry and the people who followed them. In other words progressives (Dean) and center-left liberals (Kerry).

              But there's limits to what even we can do. We can come back from defeat by Republicans like nobody's business. But we can't come back from an inspiring victory turning into business as usual. It wasn't our disillusion you were having problems with. It was the electorate's.  And there's only so much electoral disillusion we can counteract.

              if necessary for years; if necessary, alone

              by SouthernLiberalinMD on Thu Apr 11, 2013 at 04:16:16 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  you're seriously telling me Kerry's not a centrist (0+ / 0-)

                and that Dean's strategy didn't promote bluish tint in dog fur?

                This comment is dedicated to my mellow Adept2U and his Uncle Marcus

                by mallyroyal on Fri Apr 12, 2013 at 06:38:54 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  As for Kerry, there used to be a genuine position (0+ / 0-)

                  on the political spectrum called "center left" and he was it. Stalwart on many traditionally liberal issues, more willing to make deals than I liked. Bendable but also willing to hold firm, depending on the issue. Fairly standard kind of Democratic politician, before Obama and the financial crash came along.

                  As for Dean I have no fucking clue what you're talking about.

                  I consider myself lucky to have had the leadership of both of them. Too bad it's over.

                  if necessary for years; if necessary, alone

                  by SouthernLiberalinMD on Fri Apr 12, 2013 at 06:09:04 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

        •  thank you--how quickly we forget stuff (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Rick Aucoin, 3goldens, PhilK

          that doesn't prop up our cherished notions.

          The Democrats who lost in 2010 were almost all conservative Blue Dogs.

          This is because more conservatives and moderates voted for Republicans than they did in 2008, when they were demoralized by eight disastrous years of Dubya.

          We progressives were demoralized by Obama's baffling negotiation style, which mainly involved starting on the right with the GOP.

          But WE VOTED. Liberals did not stay home in 2010. Nor did we stay home in 2008. We held our noses and voted for nominally not-Republican guy.

          "This is a center-left country. Democrats can act that way and win. In fact, they must." -- Markos

          by cassandraX on Thu Apr 11, 2013 at 12:38:36 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  asdf (8+ / 0-)
      Nobody said the GOP made them do it
      They said it was a Republican idea.
      Are you sure you want to run with that?
    •  Is that all you have left? (16+ / 0-)


      you sat down and whined in 2010

      If you don't want people to "sit down" in 2014, then don't try to help the Third Way Austerians by waving their lame-ass arguments around.  

      Do better. Tell us why Social Security should be cut. Cites and charts and links are helpful and will make your case more credible than mindless support and veiled insults.

       

      "The “Left” is NOT divided on the need to oppose austerity and the Great Betrayal. The Third Way is not left or center or even right. It is Wall Street on the Potomac."--Bill Black

      by lunachickie on Thu Apr 11, 2013 at 11:06:13 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Reason Number 3 now? (3+ / 0-)

      Obama included it in his budget to punish the professional left -- hat tip to Fou for letting Obama know just how to get them good: fuck with Social Security.

      We'll add that to the list -- and please do update us if there are any new reasons Obama put it in the budget.

      Don't trust anyone over 84414

      by BentLiberal on Thu Apr 11, 2013 at 12:06:04 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Really? Obama made Rahm his CoS. A guy who (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      roadbear, sjduskin

      has been trying to privatize Liberals into the stone age since 1985. He appointed robert Rubin's hell spawn to every economic post that wasn't left with a Bush appointee in place and Arnie Duncan is a Union busting school corporatizer.

      Show me a Liberal in the administration that made it TO the 2010 mid terms.

      You have odd ideas about right and left in our conservadem led Democratic party.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site