Skip to main content

A friend of mine from Occupy, who recently got 3.7% as the third party candidate in CA-39, where I was supporting the Democrat, has flown to Utah for a few months where she is now running Rocky Anderson's third party Presidential campaign.

No, I'm not supporting Rocky -- I'm supporting Obama -- but I still consider her a friend and can appreciate her anger, both specific and coherent and ... not.  I just want to pass on something that she published in our local OC blog that I think may be of larger interest due to its almost magisterial scope.

She has 304 problems with Obama -- I know, I know, I'm not going there -- not from the right, but also not entirely from the left.

You want to know what many Occupy voters are thinking?  Well, here's a sample.

Here’s why I will NOT vote for Obama, nor would anyone else who wants America to remain the land of the free and returned to the land of opportunity:

1. Reneged on pledge to filibuster FISA Amendments Act (July 2008)
2. Lobbied for $700 billion Paulson TARP bank bailout
3. Pushed for no sanctions against Lieberman despite his support for John McCain
4. Nominated healthcare company lobbyist Tom Daschle as Secretary of HHS
5. Had neoliberal Robert Rubin as his chief economics adviser
6. Then had the equally neoliberal Larry Summers assume this role
7. Chose the failing upwards Timothy Geithner to head Treasury
8. AIG bonuses and money to Goldman under Obama
9. Doubling down in Afghanistan
10. Delay and reduction of withdrawal from Iraq
11. Moving Guantanamo activities to Bagram
12. Military commissions for some detainees
13. Support for indefinite detention
14. Refusal to release torture photos under FOIA
15. Refusal to investigate and prosecute Bush era criminality
16. Geithner’s DOA economic rescue programs: the PPIP and TALF
17. Minimal help for homeowners and no cramdowns
18. Treatment of Chrysler and GM with bankrupcy compared to bank no fail “stress tests”
19. Kabuki of TARP repayment by banks while still dependent on government credit lines
20. Extra-Constitutional use of the Fed by the Executive for fiscal policy
21. Credit Card bill without usury caps and with 9 month delay for other reforms
22. Business friendly Mary Schapiro named to head SEC
23. Gary Gensler who helped deregulate derivatives named to head CFTC
24. $787 billion stimulus: too little, too late, poorly structured
25. Use of financial crisis to attack Social Security and Medicare
26. The great healthcare non-debate
27. Continued use of state secrets argument in ongoing Bush era cases
28. Use of signing statements, including one to punish whistleblowers
29. Vetting process problems, especially tax related ones
30. Leaving Dawn Johnsen’s nomination to head OLC twisting in the wind
31. Eric Holder, failure to reform DOJ, not removing worst of Bush USAs
32. Failure to move against new oil bubble
33. Retention of Bush Defense team: Gates, Patraeus, and Odierno
34. Continued missile strikes inside Pakistan
35. Keeping Bush’s domestic spying programs and adding a new one, cybersecurity
36. Choice of Elena Kagan who favors expansive Presidential powers as Sollicitor General, her subsequent nomination to the Supreme Court
37. Leaving EFCA (to help counter anti-union companies) to wither in Congress
38. Welcoming Arlen Specter who brings nothing to the Democrats into the party
39. Weak ineffective proposals for financial reform
40. Obama wanted John Brennan at CIA but settled for making him his counter- terrorism adviser
41. Chas Freeman with broader Mideast perspective done in by AIPAC
42. Dennis Blair made DNI; failed to act to stop atrocities in East Timor
43. Choice of McChrystal involved in torture in Iraq to head Afghanistan command
44. Obama threat to suspend intelligence cooperation with UK over Binyam Mohamed case
45. Efforts to keep Bush and Obama White House logs secret
46. Playing games with “Don’t ask, don’t tell”
47. Filing a brief to overturn Jackson (access to lawyer) in the Montejo case
48. Not withdrawing Bush brief in Osborne DNA case
49. Egregious brief in challenge to Defense of Marriage Act
50. The Supplemental which made Iraq and Afghanistan Democratic wars
51. Choice of Rahm Emanuel as the President’s Chief of Staff
52. Choice of Dennis Ross as Iran envoy and then his move to the White House
53. Politically embarrassing processes to fill Obama and Clinton’s Senate seats
54. Choice of Bill Richardson, then Judd Gregg to head Commerce Department
55. Reneging on pledge to re-negotiate NAFTA
56. Obama’s throwing his pastor Jeremiah Wright to the curb, then reaching out to religious conservative Rick Warren
57. Continued challenges to habeas corpus petitions over indefinite detention, the Janko case
58. The Obama White House website
59. Continuing an ineffective program that Iran can exploit politically
60. Going slow on climate change when there is no time to
61. Not withdrawing a Bush-era amicus brief in the Ricci v. DeStefano reverse discrimination case and supporting a rollback of Title VII
62. Appointment of a CIA General Counsel who doesn’t know if waterboarding is torture
63. Appointment of a DNI General Counsel who doesn’t know if waterboarding is torture
64. CIA delay in a FOIA request concerning torture
65. The influence of Goldman Sachs in the Obama Administration
66. Attempt to keep secret the Cheney interview on the Plame affair
67. Mountaintop removal under Obama
68. Attempt to restrict Congressional notification on intelligence matters
69. Opposition to a second stimulus
70. Another egregious attempt to fight a habeas corpus petition in the Jawad case
71. Continuing charter schools and standardized tests
72. Holder’s decision to support a weak, narrow review of torture
73. Re-appointment of Ben Bernanke as Fed Chairman
74. Continuing renditions
75. Politically dubious company was used to vet reporters in Afghanistan
76. Judge vetoes a too weak SEC plea bargain with Bank of America
77. Justice’s argument for making Bagram a new Guantanamo, the al Maqaleh case
78. Defense to turn over databases to poorly controlled fusion centers
79. Obama changes but keeps Bush’s Star Wars program
80. Failure to win an Israeli freeze on settlements
81. White House refuses to back its own staffer environmentalist Van Jones
82. Politicized US Attorney in the Siegelman case cleared by Office of Special Counsel
83. Criticism of Iranian nuclear program; support of Israeli nuclear weapons
84. Support for a weakened reporter’s shield law
85. Use of the Zazi case to retain broad Patriot Act surveillance provisions
86. Wilner v. NSA, continuing the coverup of warrantless surveillance of communications between attorneys and detainees
87. Attempt to spike the Goldstone report on Israeli-Hamas war crimes in Gaza
88. Slowness in filling federal judgeships
89. Inadequate aid to overwhelmed state budgets
90. Attempting to dodge the Supreme Court deciding whether innocent Guantanamo detainees can be resettled in the US
91. Allowing drilling in the waters off the north coast of Alaska
92. Keeping detainee accounts of CIA torture secret
93. Current FBI manual allows for widespread domestic spying
94. Securitization invalidates most foreclosures
95. Geithner wanting unlimited powers to save large banks
96. Another state secrets defense to conceal domestic spying
97. Circuit Court dismissal of Maher Arar suit
98. Weakening Sarbanes-Oxley and calling it financial reform
99. Unemployment
100. Inspector General for Fannie and Freddie ousted for investigating fraud
101. Gaming courts to convict Guantanamo detainees
102. White House counsel removed for his principled stands on torture and Guantanamo
103. US seizes mosques claiming Iranian connection
104. Howard Dean removed as head of the DNC
105. Scientist with close ties to Monsanto put in charge of all governmental agricultural research
106. Pesticide lobbyist nominated as Chief Agricultural Negotiator for trade
107. Effort to let some government contractors avoid paying taxes
108. A bad US Attorney nomination for Northern Iowa
109. Hunger in America
110. The breast cancer recommendations fiasco
111. Ongoing confusion and disorganization in the military commissions process
112. Phillip Carter another official in closing Guantanamo resigns
113. Refusal to sign anti-land mine treaty
114. The Ghizzawi case and the legal limbo of “cleared for release”
115. Black prisons at Balad and Bagram
116. Delay in declassifying historic documents
117. Max Baucus’ conflicts of interest in healthcare and with his girlfriend
118. Major security breach at a White House party and a ridiculous assertion of “executive privilege”
119. Dana “Pig Missile” Perino nominated to the Broadcasting Board of Governors
120. Cass Sunstein, an anti-regulator in a regulatory position
121. Warrantless for profit electronic surveillance by telecoms and search engines
122. The government sides with torture lawyer John Yoo and attacks Bevins actions again
123. The TSA publishes its security manual online
124. Toxic legal arguments in al Zahrani v. Rumsfeld, yet another Bevins action
125. The Nobel Peace Prize and a neocon acceptance speech
126. Blackwater’s involvement in military and CIA assassination and drone programs
127. Congressional Research Service censorship in the firing of Morris Davis
128. AIG writes off $25 billion in debt and sticks taxpayers with the bill
129. The Administration plays hardball to kill an amendment that would lower drug costs
130. A poorly considered blank check to Fannie and Freddie
131. Continuing a Bush botch in the Nisoor Square massacre case
132. Jonathan Gruber, a major defender of Obamacare was also a paid consultant for it
133. A Geithner related cover up of the AIG at par payments on swaps
134. Adoption of stealth signing statements
135. al Bihani, more bad legal reasoning in another Guantanamo habeas case
136. Cutting Medicare and Social Security by deficit commission proposed
137. A 3 year non-freeze budget freeze proposed
138. NASA flights privatized
139. OPR report on Yoo and Bybee watered down and its relation to the Padilla case
140. Government targeting of US citizens for assassination
141. Abuse of informants by ICE agents
142. Obama leaves Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board empty
143. Obama backs firing of teachers in Rhode Island
144. Irish human rights advocate Edward Horgan has US visa pulled
145. Threatened veto of 2010 Intelligence Authorization Act over Congressional notifications
146. Obama Administration intimidation of whistleblowing site: wikileaks
147. Fish and Wildlife Service continues to ignore science on endangered species
148. Senate vacation more important than jobless benefits
149. Government seeks to compel turnover of emails without a warrant
150. Obama goes after an NSA whistleblower: the Thomas Drake case
151. Obama goes after a CIA whistleblower: the James Risen case
152. Weakening Miranda rights in national security cases
153. Advocating the privatizing of public housing
154. Another step in making Bagram the new Guantanamo, the al Maqaleh case, the appeals court edition
155. Massey mining disaster, 29 die because of corporate greed and poor regulation
156. Obama proposal for a line item veto
157. A military commander allowed to use military forces for intelligence operations without Presidential approval
158. Political pandering in sending 1200 National Guardsmen to the Southwest border
159. A sad record on resisting Guantanamo habeas petitions
160. Israel attacks an aid convoy for Gaza; Obama punts
161. A further erosion of Miranda: Berghius v. Thompkins
162. Naming James Clapper, a Bush appointee, to be the next DNI
163. DOJ seeks to protect Vatican in sex abuse scandal
164. Yahya Wehelie, an American exiled without charge
165. Failure to replace National Labor Relations Board members means hundreds of decisions must be reviewed
166. SCOTUS opts for overly broad definition of material support to terrorist groups
167. Speaker Pelosi backstabs Social Security
168. Complaints by government scientists of political interference at Bush era levels
169. Flip flop on free trade agreement with Colombia
170. SEC declares major victory but lets Goldman off easy
171. Private contracting of intelligence continues under Obama
172. Two Guantanamo prisoners to be deported back to Algeria against their will
173. The Shirley Sherrod affair: trumped up charges of racism and a bungled response 174. Whitewash report on Bush era US Attorney firings
175. Despite its record, Blackwater still gets big US government contracts
176. Wikileaks releases government files showing Pakistan involvement with Taliban and admission that things are going poorly in Afghanistan
177. Obama seeks to get access to everyone’s web histories without a court order
178. Teacher funding sacrificed to keep Education Secretary Arne Duncan happy
179. State’s top Iran hand resigns over Obama’s Iran policy
180. Citizens United: validation of unlimited corporate political funding
181. Push to expand US arms sales around the world
182. Project Vigilant, Infragard and “volunteer” corporate spying for the government
183. Obama’s approval hits Bush levels in Arab world
184. Effort to pre-empt state environmental lawsuits involving green house gases
185. Justice’s Anti-trust division asleep at the wheel
186. Kagan’s recusals render her even more ineffective on the Supreme Court
187. Poverty level highest since 1994
188. Courts run interference for corporate violators of international law
189. Warren named to set up but not to run Consumer Financial Protection Board
190. Chief economic adviser Larry Summers leaves; Obama looks for someone even more pro-business to replace him
191. DOJ IG report goes soft on Bush era surveillance against peace groups and other activists; meanwhile the Obama Administration conducts raids against similar groups
192. Move to put backdoors in the internet to facilitate spying and more requirements on banks on international money transfers of any size
193. HHS Secretary Sebelius delays for at least two years required insurance coverage for contraception
194. Americans on Medicaid increased to 48.5 million in 2009
195. Big home lenders suspend foreclosures as their documentation gets challenged in court
196. HR 3808, a bill passed by Congress, to facilitate the acceptance of false documentation by banks in foreclosure proceedings
197. ICE raids and deportations increase under Obama
198. Social Security COLA frozen for second straight year; no action taken
199. Waivers for military aid to countries with child soldiers
200. Big and deserved losses in the 2010 elections
201. 42 million Americans on food stamps at the end of FY 2010
202. No indictments for those involved in the CIA destruction of the torture tapes
203. The Bowles-Simpson Cat Food Commission proposals
204. $3 billion in aid for Israel for a 90 day settlement freeze
205. No change in Democratic Congressional leadership after 2010 election disaster
206. Forced proselytizing still prevalent at US Air Force Academy
207. TSA harassment and violation of the 4th Amendment
208. More TSA idiocy: full body scans and invasive pat downs
209. The response to the 2009 coup in Honduras
210. Use of diplomatic personnel to spy at the UN
211. Fed proposes rule change to Truth in Lending Act to protect bank fraud
212. FCC head Genachowski takes an axe to net neutrality
213. Lieberman and Amazon.com seek to censor wikileaks
214. Pressuring the Spanish government into dropping torture prosecutions against 6 high level Bush officials
215. Neoliberal free trade deal with South Korea at a time of high unemployment
216. Hamfisted banning access to wikileaks by government departments
217. Massive screwup in printing $100 bills
218. Extending tax cuts for the rich in a poor compromise on jobless benefits
219. Dancing boys of Afghanistan paid for by US contractor Dyncorp
220. EPA backtracks on smog standards
221. Former OMB director Peter Orszag goes to Citigroup
222. Obama breaks the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to supply Israel with nuclear fuel
223. DREAM Act for children of illegal immigrants done in by Senate Democrats
224. DOJ drops investigations of corrupt members of Congress
225. The FBI’s Guardian database, another useless, intrusive surveillance program
226. Pentagon weakens rules on contractor conflicts of interest
227. Investigation by state Attorney Generals into foreclosuregate: no criminal charges
228. Obama names Mr. NAFTA Bill Daley as his new Chief of Staff
229. Obama names neoliberal free trader Gene Sperling to replace Larry Summers
230. Executive Order to make regulations more business-friendly
231. Gulet Mohamed: Detention and torture of US citizens by proxy
232. Nelson v. NASA: government can demand intrusive, unnecessary information about its employees
233. Choice of GE’s outsourcing CEO Jeffrey Immelt as Obama’s Jobs Czar
234. Failure to weaken or eliminate the filibuster
235. Corporate targeting of Wikileaks and liberal organizations
236. Reaction to the popular revolution in Egypt
237. HHS Secretary Sebelius helps states cut Medicaid rolls and funding
238. Petraeus accuses parents not US attacks for burns to children in Afghanistan
239. US general in Afghanistan sets up illegal propaganda program targeting Americans
240. Obama plans to devastate small block grants program for the poor
241. Silence on the Wisconsin labor protests
242. Former Senator Christopher Dodd quickly becomes lobbyist after promising not to
243. Obama reinstitutes sham review tribunals at Guantanamo
244. DOJ colludes with Bush era official Scott Bloch to keep him out of jail
245. The treatment of Bradley Manning
246. State Department spokesman PJ Crowley forced to resign over Manning comments
247. Massive conflicts of interest in David Stevens at HUD and soon to be head of main lobbying group for the mortgage industry
248. Mild reaction to bloody anti-democratic repression in Bahrain and Yemen
249. Torture psychologist appointed to White House task force
250. FBI program which allows them to investigate anyone doesn’t work (surprise)
251. In his Libya war, Obama has completed the unconstitutional process of Presidents’ usurpation of Congress’ power to make war
252. Obama accepts award for transparency in secret
253. Democrats create PACs to receive unlimited contributions from anonymous donors 254. 2011 government shutdown threat as Shock Doctrine
254. The 2011 “great” biprtisan budget deal
255. The OCC deal to cover for banks in foreclosuregate
256. Reshuffling neocons at DOD and the CIA
257. Leak of Detainee Assessments shines light on the weakness of cases against many Guantanamo inmates
258. Geithner shields foreign exchange derivatives from Dodd-Frank regulation
259. Crazy new application for some US passports
260. DOJ wants SCOTUS to allow for GPS tracking without a warrant
261. An industry stacked panel to study fracking
262. SCOTUS attacks small claim class actions
263. SCOTUS okays fraud in financial presentations
264. SCOTUS attacks large class actions and Title VII
265. DOJ’s non-investigation of torture produces few results
266. Department of State threatens participants of Gaza flotilla with terrorism charges
267. Detainees now held on ships to avoid judicial scrutiny
268. CIA operating a black site prison in Somalia
269. SCOTUS and DC Appeals Court torpedoing detainee habeas petitions
270. SCOTUS greatly expands warrantless searches; Obama DOJ approves
271. Tapping the Strategic Petroleum Reserve after the 2011 spike in gasoline prices
272. Christine Varney, head of DOJ Anti-Trust Division, goes to law firm that had case before her
273. Senseless 2011 debt ceiling crisis, budget cutting, and attacks on Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid
274. TSA closes US airspace to Mexican human rights activist
275. DHS guts its unit monitoring right wing terrorism in US
276. “Recovery” benefited corporations, not workers
277. Harassment of a government scientist Charles Monett because his work clashes with drilling in the Arctic
278. African Americans and Hispanic wealth took hardest hit from financial crises
279. Cass Sunstein sitting on labor rules to protect child workers
280. Oil leasing in Gulf resumes
281. Administration pressures NY AG Schneiderman to go along with bogus mortgage settlement
282. DOJ dumps responsibility for its bungled gun running sting on handy US Attorney
283. US ranks 41st in the world in infant mortality
284. White House engages in selective prosecution of Dan Choi over DADT protest
285. COBRA extension ditched
286. Obama spikes EPA ozone limits
287. 2011 Obama fictional jobs plan
288. Contractors cost twice as much as unionized federal workers doing the same work
289. New EPA greenhouse gas limits also being drawn out
290. CFTC proposes ineffectual limits on commodity speculation
291. State Department targets career officer Peter Van Buren for writing critical book
292. Secret Law and the OLC legal justification for killing a US citizen abroad
293. US incomes fall more after recession than during it
294. Another Afghanistan fail: torture rampant in Afghan prisons
295. Bank of America dumps derivative exposure on to the FDIC with Fed approval
296. New rule to legitimize government lying in response to FOIA requests
297. Cronyism and the Keystone XL pipeline
298. Despite pledge, Obama still taking money from lobbyists
299. Secure Communities and deportation as a business
300. The Occupy movement and the attacks upon it
301. DOJ prosecuting financial fraud at the lowest rate in 20 years
302. US stops funding of UNESCO
303. 42% of Americans living paycheck to paycheck
304. The Post Office facing cuts because of unnecessary prefunding mandates

I'm normally not one to shy away from point-by-point refutation, but I think this is going to have to be groupsourced.  Anyone up for it?
EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  I would love to see Obama just not campaign in (9+ / 0-)

    Utah, Wyoming, and Idaho -- just cede those states to former Salt Lake City Mayor Rocky Anderson in the hope that he'll focus all of his energies there.  Anderson may be able to collect enough support to make a dent in one of them -- and the notion of Romney having to spend money to shore up Idaho, for example, is incredibly delicious.  I don't think that Rocky would agree to do it, though.

    Pro-Occupy Democratic Candidate for California State Senate, District 29 & Occupy OC Civic Liaison.

    "I love this goddamn country, and we're going to take it back." -- Saul Alinsky

    by Seneca Doane on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 09:40:16 AM PDT

    •  Anderson is not a threat (0+ / 0-)

      He doesn't have ballot access in enough states to make a difference. That's a sign that Nader doesn't seriously want Obama to lose; if he did, he would endorse the Green Party.

      •  I think that Nader *has* endorsed Anderson (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        blue aardvark, JVolvo, Nada Lemming

        And Anderson only needs ballot access in one state to make a difference.  If Nader had limited his campaign to Florida, we'd have had the same result.

        If people aren't interested, they can move on to another diary.  If people aren't interested, though, they may be setting themselves up for a rude surprise.

        Pro-Occupy Democratic Candidate for California State Senate, District 29 & Occupy OC Civic Liaison.

        "I love this goddamn country, and we're going to take it back." -- Saul Alinsky

        by Seneca Doane on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 10:22:11 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  That's true (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Seneca Doane

          But most of the states where Anderson has ballot access are safe Republican states (in fact, Anderson is actually a close personal friend of Mitt Romney, since they worked together on the Olympics). Nader was able to mount a nationwide campaign with the Green Party, making him much more significant.

          Yes, Nader has endorsed Anderson, but that was my point. He could have endorsed Jill Stein, who could easily be a spoiler, but he instead chose to endorse someone much less likely to make a difference.

          •  I can't find a list, do you have one? (0+ / 0-)

            I know that California and Oregon are on it -- and Oregon does not look safe.

            Pro-Occupy Democratic Candidate for California State Senate, District 29 & Occupy OC Civic Liaison.

            "I love this goddamn country, and we're going to take it back." -- Saul Alinsky

            by Seneca Doane on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 11:39:24 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

              •  That's a month old and well out of date (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                JVolvo

                It doesn't list California, nor Judge Jim Gray as his running mate.

                Pro-Occupy Democratic Candidate for California State Senate, District 29 & Occupy OC Civic Liaison.

                "I love this goddamn country, and we're going to take it back." -- Saul Alinsky

                by Seneca Doane on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 12:44:05 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Hmmm (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Seneca Doane

                  Not sure then. I'll keep looking. Still, I find it odd that Ralph Nader would endorse Rocky Anderson given that he has the Green Party and Jill Stein.

                  I would say though, that in terms of third parties, any impact from Stein and Anderson would be countered by Gary Johnson's votes that he draws from the Tea Party. Already he's shifted New Mexico solidly in Obama's favor, and has brought Arizona to swing status. That's not to say we shouldn't promote Obama, but I think the left has learned their lesson well from 2000, the last time we had an election with an incumbent Democrat. There will always be firebaggers and such, and there have been since FDR.

                  I think what people (not you, but many progressives) need to realize is that there can be legitimate criticisms of the President while still supporting him fully. The Democratic Party has a very wide electorate, and as a result the President will always be in the middle. Anytime you see someone suggest that Obama is "right wing", however, remind them that people like Barbara Lee, Elizabeth Warren, and Bernie Sanders are strong supporters of him, because they realize that he is the candidate most likely to enact a progressive agenda. At the same time, he's not perfect, and there's plenty of foreign policy issues that I disagree with him on. But even progressive heroes such as FDR and LBJ were imperfect in analogous issues. The best way to make progress on those issues is to set up an electorate that will be able to elect candidates better in those areas. This of course happens over time, so for now we have Obama.

                  Republicans are far more socialist than Democrats. Just because they want to redistribute the wealth upwards does not make it any better.

                  by MrAnon on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 09:12:15 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

  •  Thanks for this. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Seneca Doane

    I'll take a look and see what I can do.

    An Fhirinn an aghaidh an t'Saoghail. (The truth against the world.) Is treasa tuath na tighearna. (The common people are mightier than the lords.)

    by OllieGarkey on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 09:43:58 AM PDT

  •  I just...don't even know what to say (11+ / 0-)

    Rocky Anderson, huh?

  •  and that's not to mention (5+ / 0-)

    the aerial photography!

    Who names their pony Monty?

    by bubbanomics on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 09:46:02 AM PDT

  •  I was going to vote for Obama until I saw #58 (20+ / 0-)
    58. The Obama White House website
    That's it, I've had. Why arent we impeaching Obama for this?
  •  Wow! that's a long list! The right wing anti-Obama (17+ / 0-)

    list is way shorter:

    1) Obama was born in Kenya!

  •  Why punish Obama for doing the right thing? (12+ / 0-)

    I noticed some of the criticism are about things Obama ended doing alright on, like "delayed Iraq withdrawal". Also DADT, and DOMA was on there. DADT is gone, and they've stopped defending DOMA.

    Sure, it took a while on those three things, but is it worth to oppose Obama on things he ended doing right? I mean, even if you think he had to be pushed into doing those things, isnt it better to have a president who can be influenced into doing him the right thing than not? I feel like conservative get that more than liberals.  

  •  Some of the stuff on this list is ridiculous (20+ / 0-)

    some of it is poignant.  It is not worthwile defending or repudiating it all.   There is no candidate that will solve all these problems and holding 1 man responsible for the actions of 310 million people seems rather - pointless.  

    I like to think of myself as tough a critic on Obama's policies I disagree with as anyone, but holding him responsible for say

    234. Failure to weaken or eliminate the filibuster
    or
    217. Massive screwup in printing $100 bills
    sounds like just reaching for things to be mad about.  It is the same unfocused, overreach that dooms political movements all the time.  

    I mean scanning the list and I see tons of stuff Obama doesn't even have power over.  It makes the people who put together the list look like naive, idealists.   Which is exactly what DC dems like to dismiss them as.  Even as several true believers will no doubt nod their head and agree with 99% of what is on here, this list discredits and disempowers the people who use it b/c its unfocused an unrealistic.  

  •  I'm wondering if your friend can explain (11+ / 0-)

    exactly how Pres. Romney (or any other Republican) will fix the situations she's mad about.

    •  I've asked her (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Railfan, nominalize, Nada Lemming

      I expect that the reply will be: Rocky Anderson will be able to do it.

      I think that many people here don't get the mindset of third-party proponents.  That is a deficiency.  You don't have to agree -- you shouldn't, in fact -- but you should understand their critique if you want their votes.

      Pro-Occupy Democratic Candidate for California State Senate, District 29 & Occupy OC Civic Liaison.

      "I love this goddamn country, and we're going to take it back." -- Saul Alinsky

      by Seneca Doane on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 10:15:06 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Is it remotely possible to get their votes? (4+ / 0-)

        It seems to me people like your friend, and similarly people in the Ron Paul enthusiast groups, have firmly committed to the quixotic romance of their chosen hero and his movement/message.

        The response to any of those points that can remotely be taken seriously would probably be better addressed to the undecided who might otherwise be swayed by people like your friend.

        from a bright young conservative: “I’m watching my first GOP debate…and WE SOUND LIKE CRAZY PEOPLE!!!!”

        by Catte Nappe on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 10:35:07 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Sure it is -- it happens every year (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          JVolvo

          Lots of people who were very dissatisfied with Al Gore's candidacy in 2000 supported him -- me included -- despite misgivings.  We depend on that.

          And I'm not just saying "convince my friend" (which I think in her case is impossible), but also asking how to convince others and/or inoculate people against the worst stuff, and try to counter some of the more legitimate criticisms.

          If you want to kiss off their votes, fine.  I get the feeling that I'm part of a relatively small minority here who is engaged in conversation on a daily basis with people in the Occupy movement; I'm giving you the benefit of that experience.

          Pro-Occupy Democratic Candidate for California State Senate, District 29 & Occupy OC Civic Liaison.

          "I love this goddamn country, and we're going to take it back." -- Saul Alinsky

          by Seneca Doane on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 10:46:27 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I do empathize (4+ / 0-)
            I get the feeling that I'm part of a relatively small minority here who is engaged in conversation on a daily basis
            My lonely battle is waged here in gradually purpling, and even bluing, Texas. A place where I get to converse often with Republicans, not all of whom are evil creatures with horns and tails. After writing off the birthers, Glenn Beck acolytes, and other outright loons there are a surprising number of what I would consider potentially persuadable folks.

            Rather than point by point debunking of lists, such as what you've presented, I think the better strategy is more individualized. On what broad values do they base their voting decision? Then respond with questions rather than rebuttals. Things that start with "have you ever considered...." or "how do you think Romney (or Rockey) will be able to actually do that...." or "did you know that these days there have to be 60 senators in agreement to even present a bill for discussion?" Then tfollow the conversation where it goes, with the expectation of having planted some seeds for thought and not expecting some sudden blossoming or light bulb moment.

            from a bright young conservative: “I’m watching my first GOP debate…and WE SOUND LIKE CRAZY PEOPLE!!!!”

            by Catte Nappe on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 11:05:36 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I would recommend this twice. (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Seneca Doane, doroma, Catte Nappe

              Conservatives need to realize that their Silent Moral Majority is neither silent, nor moral, nor a majority.

              by nominalize on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 11:37:30 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  This was intended as a conversation starter (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Catte Nappe, JVolvo

              not as a conversation ender.

              I realize that it's sort of stunning; I presume that it was supposed to be.  Yet as I read it, I realized that a lot of people who I think should be voting for Obama (even if they don't like him) currently intend not to do so, for mostly these reasons.

              I appreciate your take on this, and I agree about what can be done on the retail (person to person) level, but on the wholesale level we are going to be having exactly these sorts of discussions with voters -- especially young voters.  Should we be ready?

              Pro-Occupy Democratic Candidate for California State Senate, District 29 & Occupy OC Civic Liaison.

              "I love this goddamn country, and we're going to take it back." -- Saul Alinsky

              by Seneca Doane on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 11:44:04 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  No, it's not. (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Deep Texan, doroma, chicago minx

          There is nothing that is actually achievable that would sway people like this. They've already made up their mind.

          "The future of man is not one billion of us fighting over limited resources on a soon-to-be dead planet. . .I won't go back into the cave for anyone."

          by Whimsical on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 10:49:29 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  And you talk to them regularly like Seneca does? (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Nada Lemming, Seneca Doane

            Hmm, you must not be a good debater nor have interest in understanding their pov.  Writing them off in June, eh?

            To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. - Theodore Roosevelt 1918

            by JVolvo on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 05:49:29 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  the only "deficiency" there (6+ / 0-)

        lies with third-party proponents tilting at the windmills of the presidency without establishing local wins and presence first.

        it's not that people don't "get" their gripes; it's that playing the spoiler is just really none-too-clever and wholly counterproductive.

        Die with your boots on. If you're gonna try, well stick around. Gonna cry? Just move along. The truth of all predictions is always in your hands. - Iron Maiden

        by Cedwyn on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 10:38:11 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Oh, is that the only problem? (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          JVolvo, Nada Lemming

          I thought that the problem was the prospect of losing the election.  I am not satisfied with losing the election so long as I can assert that it was someone else's fault.

          They'll turn around and say that complicity allows the Democratic Party to maintain its corporate-dominated status.  I think that you underestimate the appeal of that argument, especially in a modern withering social media environment.

          Pro-Occupy Democratic Candidate for California State Senate, District 29 & Occupy OC Civic Liaison.

          "I love this goddamn country, and we're going to take it back." -- Saul Alinsky

          by Seneca Doane on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 10:49:08 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  What I'm getting from the expected comments (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Nada Lemming, Seneca Doane

        is some (many?) folks here don't want to have a serious conversation about this.

        So far no one has picked out the DoJ/Bagram/Detention issues nor Goldman/Wall St/Treasury connection to mock.  Weird...

        To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. - Theodore Roosevelt 1918

        by JVolvo on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 05:47:50 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  I support the relection of the President, (8+ / 0-)

    but she is right about the items on the list related to torture and Guantanamo.

    Unless I missed them, she did miss two items:

    1. Keeping Maher Arar, the innocent Canadian who was renditioned by the US to Syria, where he was tortured for a year, on the US No Fly List.

    2. Charging Omar Khadr, a child at the time of the alleged crimes, with war crimes, the first time it has been done since WW II. Omar is a tortured child soldier, now grown, who has been in Guantanamo for almost ten years.

                        For Dan,
                        Heather

    Torture is ALWAYS wrong, no matter who is inflicting it on whom.

    by Chacounne on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 10:02:37 AM PDT

  •  Taking down a couple (10+ / 0-)
    13. Support for indefinite detention
    This one is absolutely false. Obama actually threatened to veto the NDAA until specific provisions were put in to exempt US citizens. Even after that he only signed it because it was a massive appropriations bill that could not be vetoed.
    46. Playing games with “Don’t ask, don’t tell”
    Yes, he "played games" with a policy he repealed.
    230. Executive Order to make regulations more business-friendly
    Can someone please explain to me what's wrong with this? The executive order made it clear that regulations would only be more lax for smaller businesses, and large businesses would still be regulated.
    207. TSA harassment and violation of the 4th Amendment
    208. More TSA idiocy: full body scans and invasive pat downs
    Bad things, yes, but the President doesn't directly control the TSA.
    180. Citizens United: validation of unlimited corporate political funding
    How the fuck is this Obama's fault?
    167. Speaker Pelosi backstabs Social Security
    How?
    156. Obama proposal for a line item veto
    How is this a bad thing? This would have allowed him to remove the indefinite detention provisions from the NDAA.
    189. Warren named to set up but not to run Consumer Financial Protection Board
    Instead she is running for the Senate while a man she handpicked was placed as the head.
    161. A further erosion of Miranda: Berghius v. Thompkins
    Once again, the Supreme Court is NOT controlled by the President.
    205. No change in Democratic Congressional leadership after 2010 election disaster
    What were they supposed to do? Besides, this is not Obama's problem.
    74. Continuing renditions
    Failing to mention that Obama changed the biggest problem, which was prisoners being tortured in other countries.

    These are just a few that I found were especially stupid. Many of the others are misleading (for example, problems in Guantama despite the fact that the President has tried to close down the prison) or pertaining to branches of the government not related to the President.

  •  Way to Sell Out to the Man. The Complete List (7+ / 0-)

    for the entire Democratic party would be a good 10x as long, truth be told about how we got here.

    Thing is the rightwing had the analogous numbers of grievances against the Republicans. But rather than shoot themselves in the foot going 3rd party, they set up a program between the mid 60's and mid 70's to take over the Republican Party from the inside out.

    Unless Occupy can amass 100fold greater participation to acquire the power to perform effective general strikes and such, odds are the best course for progressives is work for the party running up to elections and then work on the party the rest of the time.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 10:04:51 AM PDT

  •  ugh. (13+ / 0-)

    for instance:

    46. Playing games with “Don’t ask, don’t tell”
    what "games?"  and how did it work out?
    203. The Bowles-Simpson Cat Food Commission proposals
    yeah the ones he so stridently supported.  come the hell on.

    and this:

    287. 2011 Obama fictional jobs plan
    FORREALZ!?  Jesu Cristo folks, the repub talking points?

    there's very little to be 'refuted' here.  it's a list of personalities, assumptions, and the actions of people BESIDES the president.  I'm wholly unimpressed with your friend's critical thinking skills, if she's running with this list.

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

    by mallyroyal on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 10:05:30 AM PDT

  •  117. (9+ / 0-)
    Max Baucus’ conflicts of interest in healthcare and with his girlfriend
    Obama shoulda weighed in on who gets the remote control next.

    I know, I know, US Attorney and all that, just couldn't resist.

    Proud to be a Truth Vigilante

    by Calvino Partigiani on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 10:07:09 AM PDT

  •  A lot of these (7+ / 0-)

    Are also unsourced. That makes it very difficult to tell exactly what she's talking about and get the full picture.

  •  Ok Seneca the judges are not happy (8+ / 0-)

    about doing this, but since the list is the entire gist of your diary it goes on the pile for today's contest.

    The WDC Judges

    Republican Family Values: Using the daughters from your first wife to convince everybody that your second wife is lying about your third wife.

    by jsfox on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 10:11:48 AM PDT

    •  Give me the award! (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Nada Lemming

      I can use the publicity.

      If you don't think it's useful to know what a sizable chunk of potential Obama voters who aren't supporting Obama -- and yes, even .5% can turn an election -- are thinking 4-1/2 months before we vote, then by all means give me the award.  People who want to win won't be quite so dismissive.

      Pro-Occupy Democratic Candidate for California State Senate, District 29 & Occupy OC Civic Liaison.

      "I love this goddamn country, and we're going to take it back." -- Saul Alinsky

      by Seneca Doane on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 10:19:52 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  A sizable chunk? (5+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        jackmac, doroma, Deep Texan, Cedwyn, emelyn

        Hmm I think sizable needs to be defined.

        But in the end I really don't care what someone working on the Rocky Anderson campaign thinks because I question their thinking skills in the first place. The same way I question the thinking skills of middle class voters who vote for Romney or work on his campaign.

        Republican Family Values: Using the daughters from your first wife to convince everybody that your second wife is lying about your third wife.

        by jsfox on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 10:31:12 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Also need to define: (7+ / 0-)

          "potential Obama voters", because I cannot see how anyone who subscribes to even a portion of that list is amenable to persuasion in any form. It is the list of someone whose (mis)undersanding of government processes is firmly entrenched, and whose heart is fully and freely given to the romantic notion of their new hero or utopia.

          from a bright young conservative: “I’m watching my first GOP debate…and WE SOUND LIKE CRAZY PEOPLE!!!!”

          by Catte Nappe on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 10:41:57 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I subscribe to a portion of the list (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Chacounne, JVolvo, Nada Lemming

            and I'm supporting Obama because Romney would be worse.

            You really don't care about the votes of anyone who hates extraordinary rendition?

            Pro-Occupy Democratic Candidate for California State Senate, District 29 & Occupy OC Civic Liaison.

            "I love this goddamn country, and we're going to take it back." -- Saul Alinsky

            by Seneca Doane on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 10:53:51 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  By portion of the list (0+ / 0-)

              I don't mean an element or two or five. Here's a 'portion' of the list, which includes your issue about renditions

              70. Another egregious attempt to fight a habeas corpus petition in the Jawad case
               71. Continuing charter schools and standardized tests
               72. Holder’s decision to support a weak, narrow review of torture
               73. Re-appointment of Ben Bernanke as Fed Chairman
               74. Continuing renditions
               75. Politically dubious company was used to vet reporters in Afghanistan
               76. Judge vetoes a too weak SEC plea bargain with Bank of America
               77. Justice’s argument for making Bagram a new Guantanamo, the al Maqaleh case
               78. Defense to turn over databases to poorly controlled fusion centers
               79. Obama changes but keeps Bush’s Star Wars program
               80. Failure to win an Israeli freeze on settlements
               81. White House refuses to back its own staffer environmentalist Van Jones
              Anyone who seriously subscribes to that cluster of "concerns" is not going to be a potential vote for all the caring I, in combination with ten friends, could possibly muster. At least not in time for this election.

              from a bright young conservative: “I’m watching my first GOP debate…and WE SOUND LIKE CRAZY PEOPLE!!!!”

              by Catte Nappe on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 11:13:51 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  OK, let's take that dozen as a sample: (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                JVolvo
                70) I've been unhappy with Obama's positions on habeas corpus.  Better than Bush was or Romney would be, but still constitutionally wrong.  I don't recall which is the Jawad case.

                71) I think that this is a strong criticism -- Arne Duncan and his policies have been one of the worst things about this Administration.  Charter schools are a lifeboat for a few and standardized testing is abused, ruining public education.

                72) I don't recall what this refers to; I can believe that I had disagreed with a "let's not make waves" decision of Holder's re torture.

                73) I can understand why Obama reappointed Bernanke; I do not think that he was even nearly the best candidate.  Why not at least try nominating someone like Stiglitz?

                74) My understanding is that extraordinary renditions are continuing and I oppose them as unconstitutional and/or violations of international treaties.

                75) I don't remember what this is about and I'd hesitate to pin it on Obama personally.

                76) I think that the plea bargain with B of A was too weak; I'm not sure how much to pin that on Obama, but he does (for understandable but still pernicious reasons) not want to piss off the financial sector too badly.

                77) Yeah, I'm not happy with Baghram as Gitmo II, are you?

                78) Don't know what this is; hard (but maybe not entirely unfair) to pin on Obama if it's a problem.

                79) We shouldn't be spending money on missile defense at all, but I expect that Obama probably did what was politically achievable here.  (Could be wrong!)

                80) I think that he's worked hard on the issue; I don't fault him.  Someone who wants to cut off all aid, though, would.

                81) Yeah, that was weak, don't you think?

                I don't see a single issue there where I would not expect Romney to be worse, which would be enough to determine my vote.  But it's not a stupid list of grievances at all.

                Pro-Occupy Democratic Candidate for California State Senate, District 29 & Occupy OC Civic Liaison.

                "I love this goddamn country, and we're going to take it back." -- Saul Alinsky

                by Seneca Doane on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 11:56:09 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  On 71 (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Seneca Doane, Catte Nappe

                  I tend to agree, but on the other hand, ultimately while the feds can cheer this on, this is a state decision because K-12 is state and locally controlled. Charters operate in our state solely by the state legislature's passing charter laws (which ours has done and redone), local school boards approving charters or the state board approving where local boards have rejected. So I find it a tough one to pin on him really, although I would like Duncan to be better. But it's closer to a figurehead situation than truly enacting policies at the ground level.

              •  I support the re-election of the President. (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Catte Nappe, Seneca Doane

                I do have two questions:

                1) Since it is likely that you are right about the ability to change the minds of those who have decided not to vote for the President on the basis of his policies and practices concerning torture and the allied issues, why do you think so many Democrats tell those of us who care about the issue to be quiet and not support our efforts while there was still time to push the President to change his policies and practices ?

                2) If the President is re-elected do you think Democrats will help to push the President on those issues in the new year ?

                                  For Dan,
                                  Heather

                Torture is ALWAYS wrong, no matter who is inflicting it on whom.

                by Chacounne on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 02:41:37 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  As a foundation, before the specific points (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Seneca Doane

                  I need to explain my perception of what "make him do it" doesn't and does entail.

                  It doesn't call for hair on fire blogs calling him a war criminal (or calling even Bush and Cheney war criminal); it is not accomplished by threatening to withhold a 2012 vote, or work against re-election, or actually threaten to champion the election of someone else.

                  What "making him do it" does require is creating such a groundswell of certain demand that he clearly has no option but to do "it", whatever "it" is. That requires giving him a Congress that is amenable to him doing "it". It also requires persuading substantial numbers of fellow citizens to both talki about "it", and vocally and visibly support "it".

                  As to your point #1, I don't recall ever telling those who care about any issue to "be quiet", although I admit I  have objected to strategies and tactics that to me seemed non-productive or even counter productive. Sometimes yellling is not the best approach, while talking is; and one needs to select the correct entity to talk to (or yell at). I am also one of those dread incrementalist pragmatists who is more willing to take small wins if the political climate and playing field seems to indicate it (which it does these days, absent the amenable Congress, and substantial numbers of fellow citizens vocally supporting most of my issues)

                  #2 I don't know what fellow Democrats will do, although I doubt there has been a refusal to push the issue the past four years (again, see differences of opinion on strategy and tactics). I do think that after the election any second term President has more room to maneuver on issues, and thus should be more receptive to more significant changes. But there is still that question about an amenable Congress - and those fellow citizens.

                  from a bright young conservative: “I’m watching my first GOP debate…and WE SOUND LIKE CRAZY PEOPLE!!!!”

                  by Catte Nappe on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 03:20:54 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Yes, I completely agree with you about (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Nada Lemming, Seneca Doane

                    creating the ground swell, and we had a ground swell, then after the President was inaugurated many who had been supporting anti-torture issues dropped their support. Those of us who care about issue have been told any number of times to just be quiet because otherwise Democrats won't be elected/re-elected. I am completely and utterly ashamed of those Democrats who fled on this issue.

                    I am going to be blunt, because the truth is VERY important in this situation: Cheney and Rumsfeld and the rest of them are given airtime on radio and tv, given space in newspapers, and asked their opinions and those opinions are given gravitas. We can't even get them sent to Canterbury, but my calling them unindicted war criminals is "hair on fire" ?!  REALLY ?! I am gobb-smacked , and not in a good way.

                    Yes, there HAS been a refusal to push on the issue since the President was elected.

                                           For Dan,
                                           Heather

                    Torture is ALWAYS wrong, no matter who is inflicting it on whom.

                    by Chacounne on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 03:45:36 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I don't think we really had a groundswell (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Seneca Doane

                      There continues to be a divided response on "enhanced interrogation" vs "torture". I think we lost a fair bit of public support by expanding the issue beyond what the general public would accept. One of those damaging expansions was some voices demanding action against Bush/Cheney/et al as war criminals. People did not (and do not) want to go there. People were willing to look at waterboarding as possible torture, and then got deflected into debates about solitary confinement, or sleep deprivation and got turned off to the larger issue.

                      A useful groundswell does have to be bipartisan and fairly mainstream universal. Focus. It's what the right does so, so well. If waterborading captures the public interest then stay after that. Pound on it. Over and over. Don't get diverted to other aspects. Don't jump ahead to conclusions about the culpability of prior administrations. That just dilutes and diffuses.

                      from a bright young conservative: “I’m watching my first GOP debate…and WE SOUND LIKE CRAZY PEOPLE!!!!”

                      by Catte Nappe on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 06:14:35 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Well, it appears we are going to have to agree to (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Seneca Doane

                        disagree, because Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and several others ARE undicted war criminals, whether Americans want to admit it or not. The UN Convention Against Torture is specific and those individuals violated that convention, which is US law. The fact that Americans don't want to admit that, or deal with that, doesn't make it any less true. There is absolutely no question that waterboarding is torture. Among other things, the US court prosecuted Japanese troops who waterboarded American troops during WW II, and courtmarshalled US troops who waterboarded North Vietnamese troops during the Vietnam War. Solitary confinement and sleep deprivation are also torture, as explained by Dr. Atul Gawande, and as explained here, by Valtin, who is a psychologist who treats those who have survived torture. It changes the brain. Just because Americans don't want to admit that, or understand that doesn't make it not true.

                        I know you are intelligent. I am gob-smacked that I am having to explain all of this to someone so intelligent.

                                        Very sadly,
                                        For Dan,
                                        Heather

                        Torture is ALWAYS wrong, no matter who is inflicting it on whom.

                        by Chacounne on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 07:06:46 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  You aren't having to explain to *me* (0+ / 0-)

                          I get it. I get everything you are saying. But if the widespread public opinion is that waterboarding may, or may not, be torture you have to work really hard and consistently on spreading the awareness that it is. If widespread public opinion is that the prior administration are emphatically not war criminals and that only deluded extremists would say so, you've pretty much got an insurmountable obstacle there.

                          from a bright young conservative: “I’m watching my first GOP debate…and WE SOUND LIKE CRAZY PEOPLE!!!!”

                          by Catte Nappe on Fri Jun 22, 2012 at 07:32:33 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  And yet, you call naming the war criminals (0+ / 0-)

                            what they are "hair on fire". All that does is denegrate the efforts of those of us who are fighting for justice and accountability, and adds to the problem.

                            I agree that it will be a long tough fight, one I am willing to, and committed to, waging until there is no longer breath in my body, but I need the help of EVERYONE who gets it.

                                                           For Dan,
                                                           Heather

                            Torture is ALWAYS wrong, no matter who is inflicting it on whom.

                            by Chacounne on Fri Jun 22, 2012 at 09:15:25 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                      •  Actually, (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Seneca Doane

                        I will say two other things:

                        1) It shouldn't take a ground swell to make sure international law, to which the US is a signatory, is followed.

                        2) Part of leadership is that sometimes you have to lead people in the right direction, instead of following them when they get there.

                                                Sadly,
                                                For Dan,
                                                Heather

                        Torture is ALWAYS wrong, no matter who is inflicting it on whom.

                        by Chacounne on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 07:26:04 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                      •  We had a ground swell here, (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Seneca Doane

                        and with that ground swell here we could have made our voices heard and pushed to make a difference. But after the election that ground swell melted away.

                        Watergate wasn't the most popular thing when it began, and I don't think most people thought Nixon would reign ahead of impeachment, but the hearing were held and that educated people about the crimes that had been committed and built support for prosecutions and ultimately impeachment. I absolutely believe the same thing could have and shoul have ben done, and will keep pushing after the election.

                                                   For Dan,
                                                   Heather

                        Torture is ALWAYS wrong, no matter who is inflicting it on whom.

                        by Chacounne on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 08:02:35 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

              •  Actually, a third question: (0+ / 0-)

                Why did you put concerns in quotation marks ?

                              For Dan,
                              Heather

                Torture is ALWAYS wrong, no matter who is inflicting it on whom.

                by Chacounne on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 03:18:47 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Because to me they are "concerns" (0+ / 0-)

                  Collectively they aren't defined and explicated issues. They aren't policy prescriptions. They are random "concerns" in no particular order- 300+ of them. Yes, it implies "concern trolling" - and taken all together I'm not sure how else to categorize them.

                  from a bright young conservative: “I’m watching my first GOP debate…and WE SOUND LIKE CRAZY PEOPLE!!!!”

                  by Catte Nappe on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 06:20:24 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

          •  Bing! Give that man a cigar! (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Deep Texan, chicago minx, doroma, Cedwyn

            Seriously, I wish I could rec this 1000x.

            There is nothing Obama could actually, feasibly, realistically do to win the vote of anyone who buys into this list.  So its silly to waste time on them.

            "The future of man is not one billion of us fighting over limited resources on a soon-to-be dead planet. . .I won't go back into the cave for anyone."

            by Whimsical on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 10:55:54 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  And I'm telling you from experience that this (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          JVolvo

          reflects a mainstream reaction I'm seeing within Occupy.  Ignore at your peril.

          Pro-Occupy Democratic Candidate for California State Senate, District 29 & Occupy OC Civic Liaison.

          "I love this goddamn country, and we're going to take it back." -- Saul Alinsky

          by Seneca Doane on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 10:52:58 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Hmmm (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Cedwyn, doroma

            Here's a question at this point are these people persuadable?

            Is there something Obama could do now on his own that would get them to vote for him?

            I doubt it so why pay attention to a list where far too much of it sounds like whining.

            Republican Family Values: Using the daughters from your first wife to convince everybody that your second wife is lying about your third wife.

            by jsfox on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 11:02:03 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  I'm sorry, I know she's your friend (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        doroma, chicago minx, Deep Texan

        Did you actually read the list?  Printing it verbatim wasn't a great idea.  "304"?  I mean, come on.  

        Tax the rich! That's where the money is.

        by jackmac on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 10:39:44 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Yeah, this is pretty bad (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Deep Texan, doroma

      Tax the rich! That's where the money is.

      by jackmac on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 10:30:42 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  What's "WDC", precious? n/t (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Seneca Doane

      Barack Obama is not a secret Marxist class warrior who wants to redistribute wealth in America. But I'll still vote for him, anyway.

      by looty on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 10:59:55 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  "point-by-point refutation" (7+ / 0-)

    Why bother?  They'll just come up with another 300.

    Barack Obama is not a secret Marxist class warrior who wants to redistribute wealth in America. But I'll still vote for him, anyway.

    by looty on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 10:15:17 AM PDT

  •  are you still running for Congress? (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    doroma, Cedwyn, jj32, chicago minx

    I ask because this seems like not the best move for a Democratic candidate.

    I ♥ President Barack Obama.

    by ericlewis0 on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 10:23:06 AM PDT

    •  Not meant as a dis. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      doroma

      But think, man, what might your Goposaur opponent do with this diary. Or what if your race is super close and the DNC considers chipping in, but then finds this. Okay just thinking out loud here, and probably sounding stupid. :)

      I ♥ President Barack Obama.

      by ericlewis0 on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 10:29:34 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  No, I appreciate your interest and concern (5+ / 0-)

        I'm not going to get DNC (or actually DLCC) funding; if they come to me I'll ask them why they aren't talking to the Assembly candidate in my district instead.

        If my GOP opponent thinks that I support this entire list, or don't support Obama, I think that the beginning of the second paragraph will make him look like an idiot.

        I'm posting this here because it's good for Daily Kos readers to see it.  I think that the dismissive reaction towards voters who Democrats usually ultimately end up getting for the most part is evidence of that.

        Pro-Occupy Democratic Candidate for California State Senate, District 29 & Occupy OC Civic Liaison.

        "I love this goddamn country, and we're going to take it back." -- Saul Alinsky

        by Seneca Doane on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 10:57:45 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  eric, I'm not endorsing this list (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ericlewis0, greenbell, Railfan, JVolvo

      I'm supporting Obama.  (Oh, and I'm running for State Senate.)

      I do think that this site benefits from being less insular than we otherwise might.  If this site sees Occupy as a potential partner or even savior, people need to know what and how people involved in the movement are thinking.  Then we need to ask if it's possible to win the votes of people who read this list (much of which I do think carries weight, but none of which I think justifies anything other than a vote for Obama) -- and if so, how we do it.

      I can think of no circumstance where it's better not to know and confront what critics are saying.  We do opposition research on Republicans; well, here is another opponent, although one of purer heart, and here's some research.

      Pro-Occupy Democratic Candidate for California State Senate, District 29 & Occupy OC Civic Liaison.

      "I love this goddamn country, and we're going to take it back." -- Saul Alinsky

      by Seneca Doane on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 10:33:55 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  How can I put this politely? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    OrganizedCrime, Railfan, emelyn

    Based on that list, your friend is a little nuts.

    You can call it "class warfare" -- we call it "common sense"

    by kenlac on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 10:33:55 AM PDT

    •  We've had that discussion as well .... n/t (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      kenlac, Cedwyn

      Pro-Occupy Democratic Candidate for California State Senate, District 29 & Occupy OC Civic Liaison.

      "I love this goddamn country, and we're going to take it back." -- Saul Alinsky

      by Seneca Doane on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 11:00:13 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Then why? (0+ / 0-)

        Why are you presenting a list, as-is and in toto, that you apparently agree is "nuts"; and then expecting a serious discussion about it? If there is an overarching theme (or a few themes) that resonate for you and that "huge chunk" of fellow Occupiers, distill that out for discussion. And if you have a statement, make it. If you have a question, ask it. This diary is a disingenuous attempt to frame the one as the other.

        from a bright young conservative: “I’m watching my first GOP debate…and WE SOUND LIKE CRAZY PEOPLE!!!!”

        by Catte Nappe on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 11:21:38 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I am reporting on it, period (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          JVolvo

          This is what I found on our county blog.  I don't think that I need to process it; this is what voters will see.  Giving you a processed version weakens the exercise by introducing my own judgments as to what's important.

          Why do I want a serious discussion about it?  Because these sorts of grievances are more widely held than people here seem to be prepared to accept -- and they could potentially lose Obama the election.  That's why -- non-disingenuously.

          Pro-Occupy Democratic Candidate for California State Senate, District 29 & Occupy OC Civic Liaison.

          "I love this goddamn country, and we're going to take it back." -- Saul Alinsky

          by Seneca Doane on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 11:59:44 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  There's a common rhetorical tactic... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Seneca Doane

            ...where one simply floods the zone with so much information that it become not just impossible to rebut all of it, but impossible to even address or acknowledge all of it. The goal is to leave others so overwhelmed that no comprehensive response is possible. Attempting to rebut point by point is falling into the trap that's been laid, and non-rebuttal is seen as surrender. (We see this tactic play out right here on DKos on almost a daily basis.)

            The only effective response in cases like these is to pick off the things that are obviously overreaches or incredible on their face, hilight them, and imply that the lunacy extends to all the other points. This leaves the other person to either (a) back off the tactic or (b) continue with the lunacy.

            This is not an ideal situation. Certainly those with honest intent would want to separate the legitimate items from the illegitimate, and then have a serious conversation about the legitimate. And those same people would not wish to dismiss serious issues categorically. (Which is part of the trap: by conflating the serious with the trivial, one is either forced into a point-by-point rebuttal, or leaves one open to the charges of categorical dismissal.)

            Your friend, I'm sad to say, does not appear to be a person of honest intent.

            You can call it "class warfare" -- we call it "common sense"

            by kenlac on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 02:19:47 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  She has 300 reason, but Obama had only 2 years to (7+ / 0-)

    do anything about her concerns. May be not enough time to address and change them. Plus, she ignores politics where to get anything done, the president may have to make concessions whether we like them or not, just to get around massive and historical obstruction from day one. This is the president should be able to do everything in 2 freaking years on overload.

    What about the political consequences if Obama has taken the steps she wants too early or aggressively. Heck, they are voting to find the AG in contempt on crap like fast and furious. What the heck does she think would have happened if the president had taken the steps she'd prefer?

    I haven't heard anything else about torture, I haven't heard of, or seen any naked bodies piled up like Abu Gruabe. But she will not vote for Obama and allow this to happen in Iran and other places and have no HCR law at all, if Romney is elected.

    Sure I disapprove of some of the same things she does,  but I see a light at the end of the tunnel. With Romney, I see a return to and ramped up continuation of Bush and Cheney policies, where that light at the end of the tunnel turns to darkness.

  •  Translation: (7+ / 0-)

    "My ass wasn't kissed enough on my particular issue, and I don't give a damn about damaging my fellow citizens and the country, because my feelings about how I vote trump everything else."

    And to answer your question, Seneca: No, I don't particularly CARE what these people think (and I'm sick of being told I need to kiss their ass to get them not to vote to damage me and our country). You know why?

    Because there is NOTHING that Obama could actually do to get their vote. Not a damn thing. Their noses are so high in the air that they cant see the holes in the path they're on, their demands for all practical purposes are so utterly impossible, that the correct response - if you want to win- is to write them completely and totally off and go after people that are ACTUALLY persuadable rather than waste resources on people who demand the impossible, and frankly, wouldn't be satisifed if they got it.

    (Which, by the way, is exactly how those folks have driven the party so far right over the past 40 years, but that's a whole nother discussion. . .)

    "The future of man is not one billion of us fighting over limited resources on a soon-to-be dead planet. . .I won't go back into the cave for anyone."

    by Whimsical on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 10:45:10 AM PDT

    •  That's a particularly uncharitable take (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Shahryar, greenbell, JVolvo

      on the role of the left in elections.  I feel the same way about being told that I have to kiss the asses of Wall Street, big corporate donors, the military and contractors, the regressive portions of religious movements, etc.

      Most leftists do come around in the end -- and some don't.  I'd like to maximize that number -- and I'd like to see the party earn that support.  OK?

      Pro-Occupy Democratic Candidate for California State Senate, District 29 & Occupy OC Civic Liaison.

      "I love this goddamn country, and we're going to take it back." -- Saul Alinsky

      by Seneca Doane on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 11:03:09 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  The far, fringe left is directly responsible for (0+ / 0-)

        pushing the party rightward for 40+ years (and indirectly responsible for your "hav[ing] to kiss the asses of Wall Street, big corporate donors, the military and contractors, the regressive portions of religious movements, etc."), and continue to advocte policies that will directly negatively impact not just my country, but my family and myself.  So you'll have to forgive me for not feeling particularly charitable towards them.

        Most leftists do come around in the end -- and some don't.  I'd like to maximize that number -- and I'd like to see the party earn that support.  OK?
        Oh, so would I, believe me.

        But the way to accomplish that is most decidedly NOT to get down on our knees, pucker up and in our very best voice go "Pwetty pwetty please come back to the Democratic party, and we pwomise to  (ineffectively)throw our broken and bleeding bodies against whatever windmill you like(ignoring issues where real, actual progress can be made)- if only you'll WUV us again!"

        The way to do it is to grab them by the shoulders and SHAKE them: "Hey, doofus! Elections have consequences- you don't get Obama re-elected REAL HUMANS will be devastated.  If you actually think that your precious "principles" are worth damaging other human beings for, guess what- you don't actually have any.

        You help get a Republican elected(even if its only by not voting for the Democrat)- you OWN part of the consequences.  Period.  Now, you can lie to yourself about that all you like- but I'll be damned if I'll let you lie to me.

        And you're out of your freaking mind if you think a Romney win is going to do anything other than make every single issue you care about, much, much worse.

        You actually want to make things better? Get off your high horse and get Obama back in there with a Congress  that won't obstruct him at every !@#$%^ turn (you know, like the kind he could've had in 2010 if you hadn't turned off so much off the electorate with the same myopic nonsense you're still spouting now).  Do that, and maybe I'll start to believe you actually give a crap about something other than the whiny sound of your own voice.

        Otherwise, go sell crazy somewhere else. We're all stocked up here."

        "The future of man is not one billion of us fighting over limited resources on a soon-to-be dead planet. . .I won't go back into the cave for anyone."

        by Whimsical on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 02:40:41 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Perfect. wish i had your skills (0+ / 0-)
    •  If whatever group of potential voters this list (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Shahryar

      represents wants to be taken serious then they need a serious list. This particular list just begs for its proponents to be marginalized. And if this represents Occupy critical thinking and acumen there is a reason that no political party seeks their support. Instead of addressing the points on this list we need to include that group, along with the tea party and rabid right wing in our educational programs about how things work. This list just reflects immature and non reality based thinking. It's the same level of emotion driven expectation we get from the right. Unfortunately this kind of thinking leads to politicians dismissing progressive concerns out of hand. Any politician realizes that a list like this is an insurmountable barrier to support. So they write us off as unappeasable and address the concerns of the middle or right. This friend and that Occupy do more than hurt us by not voting for Obama. They allow politicians to dismiss us. Maybe more importantly than wooing these voters would be an effort to explain how this list in no way represents the Progressive voters  Even if Progressives agree with some of the points on it.

      “You can only become truly accomplished at something you love. Don't make money your goal. Instead, pursue the things you love doing, and then do them so well that people can't take their eyes off you...” - Maya Angelou

      by stellaluna on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 01:38:01 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  OK, so say that DKos looks down on Occupy (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        JVolvo

        for not being more like DKos.  Then what?

        (In my life, this is not a theoretical question.)

        Pro-Occupy Democratic Candidate for California State Senate, District 29 & Occupy OC Civic Liaison.

        "I love this goddamn country, and we're going to take it back." -- Saul Alinsky

        by Seneca Doane on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 01:53:35 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  See my response to stellaluna n/t. (0+ / 0-)

          "The future of man is not one billion of us fighting over limited resources on a soon-to-be dead planet. . .I won't go back into the cave for anyone."

          by Whimsical on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 02:51:07 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  I don't think it's unique to DK or Occupy. (0+ / 0-)

          Occupy isn't that unique to many progressive organizations (DK may not be either : )). This problem isn't unique. I agree with whimsical that this pattern repeats itself. I do think Occupy had the potential to be different in that at the beginning it really did seem to catch the hearts and minds of many different kinds of people. And with that kind of diversity it would have been hard to simply write off. But the focus on camping and confrontation along with a governing system that excluded people because their other obligations made availability to participate difficult.  It winnowed down the participation to the point that you get these kinds of unrealistic complaints. Hopefully occupy can regain that impetus that it had when it really did try to encompass the 99%. But if it doesn't I fear Occupy's demands will be ignored because they can't be met.

          “You can only become truly accomplished at something you love. Don't make money your goal. Instead, pursue the things you love doing, and then do them so well that people can't take their eyes off you...” - Maya Angelou

          by stellaluna on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 05:05:41 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Yes! 100% accurate (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        stellaluna
        This list just reflects immature and non reality based thinking. It's the same level of emotion driven expectation we get from the right. Unfortunately this kind of thinking leads to politicians dismissing progressive concerns out of hand. Any politician realizes that a list like this is an insurmountable barrier to support. So they write us off as unappeasable and address the concerns of the middle or right.
        It's such a vicious cycle- the far left suckers the public with crap like this- politicans write them off and go after people that are actually persuadeable to the right- instead of getting a clue, the far left doubles down on a clearly failed strategy -suckers even in more of the public - the politicans write them off. . .

        The far left is going to have to break that cycle(because the politicans sure as hell wont) if they EVER want to be anything other than marginalized.  

        Sadly, I don't hold out much hope for them doing that.

        "The future of man is not one billion of us fighting over limited resources on a soon-to-be dead planet. . .I won't go back into the cave for anyone."

        by Whimsical on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 02:50:26 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  this list resembles Obama's "achievements" (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Seneca Doane, mallyroyal

    you know the list I mean, where half of them are silly. Where some aren't anything he did, where some are still just intentions and some are just misinterpretations of what happened.

    So too, this thing. You have to search through it for an actual argument. There's plenty that could be on this anti-Obama list but "Senate vacation", for example, is pretty easy to skip and, to be honest, isn't going to be of much use when talking to voters.

  •  You want a more liberal Obama? (10+ / 0-)

    Work for a more liberal Congress.

    It really is that simple.

    Giving up the gains we've made just to punish Obama for not making all of the gains we wanted fast enough is plain stupid.

    It's like purposefully crashing your car just to prove the road is unsafe.

    To be a Republican, you have to believe that our economic problems are caused by the poor having too much money and the rich not having enough.

    by Tommy Jones the Band on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 10:58:16 AM PDT

  •  More and better (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Cedwyn, Seneca Doane, doroma

    democrats... pls

  •  'A bad attorney nomination in Northern (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Seneca Doane, doroma

    Iowa'. These people are a joke.

  •  Just off the top of my head, (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Seneca Doane, doroma

    number 302 is bullshit.  That was mandated by a 1992 law.  There was literally nothing that Obama could have done about that, short of getting Congress to repeal the law.

    Ultimately, the only thing that matters with respect to preserving choice is who will be nominating the next Supreme Court Justices.

    by Its the Supreme Court Stupid on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 11:09:36 AM PDT

  •  why the "achievements" list is better (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Seneca Doane, mallyroyal

    this list is way too vague, there are way too many that seem to have been added as afterthoughts, as if someone in the back of the room said something and the scribe added it without discussion.

    The achievements list is misleading and irritates me but it's phrased much better. Here are some examples:

    Won two extensions of the debt ceiling and extensions of unemployment compensation in the face of Republican threats to shut down the U.S. government
    Notice the use of the word "won". This deflects the discussion away from "extended the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy".
    Pulled troops out of Iraq and began draw down of troops in Afghanistan
    Neglects to mention Bush signed a treaty with the Iraqis that said the US had to have combat troops out by a certain date and Obama kept them in as long as he could.

    Still, these two (as examples...there are lots of others) are phrased very well and can be used with voters.

    The anti-Obama list is full of little-known, unexplained items like the Jawad case. That's not going to help a 3rd party candidate, unless the goal is to weed out those who are uncool, i.e. not as knowledgeable. It's kind of elitist, isn't it? Why list that one without explaining what it is? The anti-Obama list is full of this sort of thing.

    It's way too long. If your friend is serious about getting people to vote 3rd party then you might suggest this list be cut way down and rewritten. As it is it's ineffective. Start with biggies, too. In fact, only list the biggies. The small items cast doubt on the rest of the list.

  •  There are certainly (4+ / 0-)

    Some legitimate beefs with Obama in this list, I know I've seen a few that I think I can't really defend or explain away.

    But I'd ask your Occupier friend what they think they actually hope to accomplish by not voting for Obama in 2012.

    If they honestly think not voting for Obama this year will do anything other than make this entire list demonstrably worse (because not voting for Obama may as well be a vote for Romney), then I'd like you get me some of whatever they're smoking, because it must be some pretty good stuff.

    From a guy who's had plenty of complaints about the President, I have come to the conclusion he's the only sane choice this year. To vote for anyone in the hopes of "fixing" the system or "sticking it to the man" or anything, is pure and utter insanity.

  •  Okay, 293 is nonsense (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Seneca Doane

    Apologies for no cut/paste, but the reason incomes fell more sharply after the recession is because employers don't open the business page every morning and say "well, dow is down 78to points today. Everyone loses $3,400."

    The only way Obama could have prevented salaries from falling more after the recession would be to prolong the recession.

  •  I think I went over this more closely than... (3+ / 0-)

    whoever compiled the list.

    Aren't 190 and 229 the exact same thing?

    190. Chief economic adviser Larry Summers leaves; Obama looks for someone even more pro-business to replace him

    229. Obama names neoliberal free trader Gene Sperling to replace Larry Summers

    It's pretty easy to reach 304 when items are duplicated or triplicated. One mention of Geithner being pro-Wall Street would have been enough. I counted 36 reasonable items out of the 304. That makes the list pretty much a waste of time.

    Here's something for your friend: I have decided to not vote for Rocky Anderson based on the poor quality of this list.

  •  Oh give me a break (0+ / 0-)

    So they would rather support a 3rd party candidate that stands absolutely no chance of winning and by taking votes away from Obama automatically gives them to Romney and then see Romney elected and the Republicons in control?  Remember, we won 1 race due to a 3rd party candidate (Clinton/Bush/Perot) but lost another in Florida (Bush/Gore/Buchannan) which gave us 8 years of horror.

    Lets see how they feel with life under Romney and the Republicons and it will be worse than under Bush.  Cut off your nose to spite your face.  

    Never be afraid to voice your opinion and fight for it . Corporations aren't people, they're Republicans (Rev Al Sharpton 10/7/2011)

    by Rosalie907 on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 12:06:27 PM PDT

  •  Wonder if she'll have regrets when the Republicans (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Seneca Doane

    take complete control and sweep all your rights away.  Because, after all, who's to stop them?  One more conservative justice and you're all doomed.

    We must, indeed, all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately. B. Franklin

    by Observerinvancouver on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 12:07:06 PM PDT

  •  Some people will vote "lesser evil" (4+ / 0-)

    no matter how extreme the scenario:

    Others, like myself, have our limits.

    "I wish I could tell you, in the midst of all of this, that President Obama was waging the kind of fight against these draconian Republican proposals that the American people would like to see. He is not." -- Senator Bernie Sanders

    by Sagebrush Bob on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 12:07:56 PM PDT

    •  Fine (0+ / 0-)

      Go vote for Rocky Anderson, or Jill Stein. Nothing Obama does will convince you anyways.

      Let's actually consider what an Anderson administration would look like. If the desperate quality of this list is reflective of his campaign, then he would be one of the most ineffective presidents of all time. No doubt we would have no health care reform whatsoever, but at least we wouldn't have passed one without a public option. No doubt the Bush Tax Cuts would have all expired, along with unemployment benefits and earned income credits. We wouldn't have had Medicare cuts in the budget deal, although we would have had a massive worldwide irreversible economic collapse.

      But drones, torture, banksters, drones, Afghanistan War, compromise politics, drones, whistleblowers! Did I forget the drones!

      Republicans are far more socialist than Democrats. Just because they want to redistribute the wealth upwards does not make it any better.

      by MrAnon on Fri Jun 22, 2012 at 07:07:34 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Interestingly (0+ / 0-)

      The man you quote remains a supporter of President Obama. As do Elizabeth Warren, Russ Feingold, Barbara Lee, Sherrod Brown, and Maria Cantwell. I suppose those guys are all "lesser evils" as well.

      Republicans are far more socialist than Democrats. Just because they want to redistribute the wealth upwards does not make it any better.

      by MrAnon on Fri Jun 22, 2012 at 07:15:39 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Getting a little tired of this. (0+ / 0-)

    These "lists". This "debate".
    Are there a finite number of ways to try to explain this to me?
    I hope so.
    Four and a half months to a pivotal election.
    You're not onboard? Okay. I get that. Got it. Check.
    And if you don't mind, if it meets with your approval, I'd like to see a Democrat in the White House after the election.

  •  My apologies to your friend (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Seneca Doane

    Perhaps her mind is not as scattered and undefined as the list indicates. It appears the list is not hers. It's the product of some fellow named Hugh, who posts often at FireDogLake; and has been a third party proponent since before Obama's election. He developed a web site to track Obama Scandals, and the list seems to be ever growing.
    obamascandalslist.blogspot.com/

    He is such a strong 3rd party proponent that he finds FDL is too supportive of Democrats.
    Hugh says:

    May 15, 2012 at 6:03 pm

    They are critical of Obama but they have never officially rejected the Democratic party and they have never championed the creation of a progressive third party.

    As for the Obama scandals list, I have been on hiatus. The last addition to it was, I think, back in November 2011 when it hit 300. I have been saving some links in the interim, however, and I may start updating it beginning this week.

    http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/...

    Since it is now appearing on your county (party?) web site, I think you may have found one of those rare LW versions of a favored FW:FW:FW piece.

    from a bright young conservative: “I’m watching my first GOP debate…and WE SOUND LIKE CRAZY PEOPLE!!!!”

    by Catte Nappe on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 01:17:29 PM PDT

  •  Even minus the items that are (0+ / 0-)

    non sequiturs, not Obama's fault or not terribly important, it's a damn long list. And damning. Amazingly, I know I could come up with about 20 more in 1o minutes if I wanted to. But what's the point?

    This whole thing has been a train wreck since Nov 5, 2008.

    The only reason that change is so hard is that the moderates on "our" side are Tories who support the aristocracy.

    by Words In Action on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 03:44:29 PM PDT

  •  This list needs to be edited (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cfm5555, CentralMass

    but on about forty to fifty of them, it reminds me why I have stopped donating to the DNC and won't lift a finger to re elect Obama, other than perhaps lazily lift a lever in a last minute pique of lesser evilism.  Nobody in this diary has convinced me why a vote for Rocky is dumber than a vote for Obama.  Voting for a third party camdidate does not equal a vote for the republican any more than it means a vote for a democrat, unless the alternative was to vote for one or the other in the first place. Each candidate starts with zero votes, ot half the votes.   That argument is just plain stupid and won't convince anyone.  

    Somebody needs to break these into twenty or thirty point chunks and cross out the stupid ones, then rate the ones that are left.  

    ‎"Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have the exact measure of the injustice and wrong which will be imposed on them." --Frederick Douglass

    by Nada Lemming on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 07:08:06 PM PDT

  •  Point-by-point refutation in a nutshell. (0+ / 0-)

    1. Bad as Gore was, Naderism gave us Bush, who was clearly worse.

    "The true strength of our nation comes not from the might of our arms or the scale of our wealth, but from the enduring power of our ideals." - Barack Obama

    by HeyMikey on Fri Jun 22, 2012 at 11:52:56 AM PDT

  •  More to debunk (0+ / 0-)
    34. Continued missile strikes inside Pakistan
    Remains very popular among the public and even in the left. This has caused most of Al-Qaida's leadership to dwindle. I'm assuming the critique stems from civilian casualities, but Obama has personally taken steps to reduce those. His record here isn't perfect, but it is exaggerated by the firebaggers and such.
    146. Obama Administration intimidation of whistleblowing site: wikileaks
    Wikileaks as a whole had whistleblowing intents, but the problems with the Bradley Manning leak was that in addition to showing fraud, it released confidential information that violated the Espionage Act.
    56. Obama’s throwing his pastor Jeremiah Wright to the curb, then reaching out to religious conservative Rick Warren
    Seriously, defending Wright? And Rick Warren was only there for the inauguration. I think it's clear that Obama does not share his views on homosexuality.
    234. Failure to weaken or eliminate the filibuster
    Not his job, and actually unconstitutional for him to do under Separation of Powers. He has, however, called for reform in his SotUs.
    169. Flip flop on free trade agreement with Colombia
    215. Neoliberal free trade deal with South Korea at a time of high unemployment
    The People's View does a good job of debunking this.
    88. Slowness in filling federal judgeships
    How is congressional stalling Obama's fault? Oh wait, you already said it was.
    213. Lieberman and Amazon.com seek to censor wikileaks
    Yes, it's apparently Obama's fault even when a Republican does something bad.
    118. Major security breach at a White House party and a ridiculous assertion of “executive privilege”
    Is this referring to the recent Holder case (which was the first time Obama used executive privilege)? Because this sounds like a right-wing criticism.
    201. 42 million Americans on food stamps at the end of FY 2010
    Another Republican criticism. There's a reason why these people are called Firebaggers.

    Republicans are far more socialist than Democrats. Just because they want to redistribute the wealth upwards does not make it any better.

    by MrAnon on Fri Jun 22, 2012 at 06:46:00 PM PDT

  •  I don't think we are convincing the firebaggers (0+ / 0-)

    They are a hopeless cause.

    I'll just leave this, though.
    The thing that confuses me is how people can wonder how, if you agree with someone 95 percent of the time and you are open about your disagreements with the person, that means that you wouldn’t want to support him. I appreciate the fact that we have a really intelligent and thoughtful President. And he understands that he and I disagree with things.” ~ Russ Feingold, Co-Chair of the Obama campaign and civil libertarian.

    Republicans are far more socialist than Democrats. Just because they want to redistribute the wealth upwards does not make it any better.

    by MrAnon on Fri Jun 22, 2012 at 07:11:58 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site