Skip to main content

It only took 6 weeks.

I was worried that Obama would sell out the progressive agenda.

The good news is, the anticipation is over. Liberals who worried that Obama would sell them out need worry no more. Not so deep down, they knew this would happen. Now they can settle down for four more years of depressing Republican-lite kowtowing to corporations and the one percent.

It was clear in his first term that Obama was a conservative.

It didn’t take long for Obama to sell out the liberal base of his party the first time. Everything became clear in December 2008, when his cabinet picks didn’t include a single liberal. Well, here it is, December 2012, and can’t get fooled again but we did, as George W. Bush would sorta say.
He extended the Bush tax cuts in his first term and the Heritage medial plan implemented by Romney in Mass.

I was concerned that he would not be the Roosevelt legacy champion.

This, remember, was the president who was supposed to bust out as an FDR-style crusading liberal ready, willing and able to fight the right-wing Republicans and stand up for ordinary Americans.
Many of us voted for Obama out of fear of what Romney would do.

Noam Chomsky said about the election 1. the least bad candidate won. 2. It is over. Any real activist would take about 5 minutes to figure out who to vote for, and then get back to work on their project.

What if the money we gave to political campaigns had been given to new media and progressive causes? The billionaires and plutocrats can outspend us going forward.

But, it would have been worse if Romney won, wouldn't it?

I know what they’re thinking. Things would be even worse if Mitt Romney had won.

I wouldn’t be so sure.

Policy-wise, a Romney administration would have been pretty much the same as Obama’s second term. Who knows, he might have picked Chuck Hagel as Defense Secretary.

In terms of building the political Left, a President Romney would have galvanized liberals and progressives to fight for a fairer society that treats everyone equally and with dignity. Obama, his sellouts, and his faux liberal apologists represent two steps backwards for progressivism.

The quotations are from a new article by the progressive Ted Rall.

Six Weeks After Reelection, Obama Sells Out Liberal Democrats

http://www.commondreams.org/...

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

  •  Shtick... never... stops... (11+ / 0-)

    "Every now & then your brain gifts you with the thought, 'oh, that's right, I don't actually give a **** about this.' Treasure it" -- jbou

    by kenlac on Tue Dec 25, 2012 at 07:07:15 AM PST

  •  So what's the point? (44+ / 0-)

    We've been hearing this kind of silliness from true believers like Ted Rall and Ralph Nader forever.  It's just the old "no difference between the parties" line that served us so well in 2000.  

    Anyone who seriously expounds the proposition that it didn't matter whether Obama or Romney won deserves no intellectual respect from me and won't get any.  

    •  Of course there are differences. Doesn't mean (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      aliasalias

      that Obama doesn't suck as a Democratic President, that he doesn't govern as an old-fashioned moderate Republican, and that he isn't atrocious for purposes of building up the power and enthusiasm of the progressive base -- see 2010, which, if PBO continues as he has in his 1st term, we are bound to repeat in 2014.  I voted for him because of how atrocious the opposition is right now -- the first time in 13 elections  I've ever voted for a Dem for Pres. when not living in a swing state rather than a 3rd-party candidate.  Doesn't mean I can't think he's a piss-poor excuse for a Democratic President.  That's what I thought of Carter & Clinton.  So why would I think any different of BO -- a.k.a. Clinton Redux?  I'm a progressive Dem in the tradition (domestically) that dominated the party from 1933 to 1972.  So excuse me if I'm none too pleased with the Blue Dog corporatists who dominate the party leadership today.

      •  So you're a liberal (6+ / 0-)

        or progressive who votes for third parties, because none of the Democrats are pure enough for you?
        How's that working our for you so far?

        “We are not a nation that says ‘don’t ask, don’t tell.’ We are a nation that says ‘out of many, we are one.’” -Barack Obama

        by skohayes on Tue Dec 25, 2012 at 11:33:46 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  How's electing Blue Dogs President working out? (5+ / 0-)

          We now have a political discourse whose center is somewhere to the right of Dwight Eisenhower, an enormously bloated "defense budget," stagnant or falling middle-class income, inequality of wealth and income not seen in the U.S. since the 1920's, SES mobility closer to that of many developing countries than those of Western Europe,  ridiculously low real income taxes paid by the rich, the long-term decline of private-sector unions, an ongoing brutal attack on public school and their teachers by corporatist educational pirates and science-hating fundies.  Should I go on?  Oh, actually I should mention that the deregulation of the financial sector that was partly responsible for the recent financial crash and subsequent near-depression had the full support of the Rubin-Summers wing of the Clinton administration, not to mention the "free trade" agreements that contributed to the devastation of American manufacturing and our trade unions, previously the most effective institutional base of the Democratic party.  Should I go on?

          P.S.  It's being a "purist" to give money to and canvass for John Kerry in 2004 in PA?  To want more power for politicians like my current Congressman, Mike Capuano, and future Senator, E. Warren?  Or, as I plan to do,  to contribute to and work for whatever Dem runs for Kerry's Senate seat?  Like I said, I've always voted for Dems if it could have any effect on the outcome of an election.  Sorry if as an anti-war Dem I didn't vote for Humphrey in NY in '68 or, as someone who despised many of the corporatist economic/financial policies of the Clinton-Gore administration, I didn't vote for Gore in PA in 2000.  If I had lived in FL at the time, I would have voted for Gore, not Nader.  

             If that's being a "purist," so be it.  But it seems to me that expecting someone to be enthusiastic about a candidate or party with whom he disagrees as much as he agrees just because the other candidate or party is worse is grossly unrealistic.  Which is one reason we ended up with 2010 and will end up with a repeat in 2014 if PBO, Pelosi, and Hoyer continue with their policy of pre-emptive surrender.  In fact, in PBO's case, more and more people are beginning to suspect that he follows his otherwise inexplicable negotiating strategy because he actually believes the BS about budgets and entitlements being spewed by the corporatist right -- this is the guy, after all, who appointed the corporation shill Bowles and the reactionary Simpson to head up his budget/deficit commission, which produced just the reactionary document that you'd expect from those two.  

  •  you weren't "worried" Obama would (37+ / 0-)

    "sell you out," you were waiting for "it" with bated breath. (whatever "it" is because as far as I can see most of those saying, "see I was right, are your eyes open yet" are basing their claims on nothing that has actually happened so far.)

    Ted Rall hasn't believed in electoral politics forever. He wrote an essay in 1994 for The New York Times, "Why I Will Not Vote," "which justified apathy among Generation Xers who saw neither the Democrats or Republicans responding to their concerns."

    There's been a "not a dime's worth of difference" analysis for 50 years now. Has it moved the country forward? If you believe it has, well people believe all sorts of, ahem, "different" things, but:

    Again I ask: if that's what you believe, why aren't you contributing on Counterpunch or some other site? Why aren't you actually doing some, you know, on the ground work for a third party alternative? (that's a rhetorical question, mind you, I know the answer based on my own experience with third party politics, but since it's Christmas, I won't spell it out). Why is it so important for you folks to participate here at this site? Nobody's ever answered that question, and I ask it a lot.

    •  It's analogous to the Right's 'Obama Agenda' (27+ / 0-)

      Where for four (five?) years they've breathlessly warned us against all the horrible things Obama is going to do.... and strangely has not yet gotten around to doing yet.

      "Marco Rubio es un pañuelo Rosa!" - Montgomery Burns

      by Fordmandalay on Tue Dec 25, 2012 at 07:14:29 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Reminds me of work (11+ / 0-)

        Talking to one co worker who said Obama was gonna destroy America so I asked him "then why didn't he do it the first 4 years?".

        If at first you don't succeed, vote Teapublicans out and try again. You have to be persistent if you want anything out of life.

        by Final Frame on Tue Dec 25, 2012 at 08:00:28 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  He'll destroy America during the lame duck in 2016 (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Fordmandalay, FiredUpInCA, Quicklund

          [/snark] (just in case).

          People like that (and this diarist) are ridiculous.  But I guess, as others have noted, some people have nothing better to do on a holiday than take a nice long leak in the punch bowl.

          "The first drawback of anger is that it destroys your inner peace; the second is that it distorts your view of reality. If you come to understand that anger is really unhelpful, you can begin to distance yourself from anger." - The Dalai Lama

          by auron renouille on Tue Dec 25, 2012 at 04:26:17 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  Except (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        snoopydawg, Just Bob, Sunspots

        That Obama did some terrible things.  

        Hay hombres que luchan un dia, y son buenos Hay otros que luchan un año, y son mejores Hay quienes luchan muchos años, y son muy buenos. Pero hay los que luchan toda la vida. Esos son los imprescendibles.

        by Mindful Nature on Tue Dec 25, 2012 at 08:12:37 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  not the things the right-wingers thought (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          FG, Cedwyn

          were terrible, and that's the point.

          •  The key is that he HAS done them (6+ / 0-)

            Past tense.  You know the list: attacking public sector workers, expanding the security state, opening offshore oil drilling and expanding coal mining, adopting Rubinite economic policies (though since Clinton at least that one is fairly a Democratic policy), proposing/endorsing sovial security cuts, etc

            So lets take off the rose colored glasses and stop pretending that widespread suspicion of the President on the left is anything other than well earned. President Obama worked for it and I can only imagine he welcomes our suspicion about whether the Democratic Obama or the Republican Obama will show up on a given day and a given issue.  (Note: Obama is pretty post partisan in the he's very much in line with both parties.  He's the political knuckleball that has no spin and so jumps all over the place

            Hay hombres que luchan un dia, y son buenos Hay otros que luchan un año, y son mejores Hay quienes luchan muchos años, y son muy buenos. Pero hay los que luchan toda la vida. Esos son los imprescendibles.

            by Mindful Nature on Tue Dec 25, 2012 at 08:52:42 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  that wasn't the commenter's point (7+ / 0-)

              as you should certainly acknowledge.

              I don't have rose colored glasses about Obama - or about America and its role in the world - and never have, well I mean maybe I did in the 4th grade or whatever but graduating from high school in 1973, criticism of America the empire was not scarce during my formative years.

              lthough there's certainly lots of positives, too, about this nation of immigrants we have, some of them manifesting in ways that I would never have believed back in 1973.

              "widespread suspicion of Obama on the left"? depends how you define 'the left' doesn't it? votes for third party alternative candidates on "the left" in November were about as low as I've seen.

              yes, as usual, the government of America the empire does not, to put it mildly, entirely reflect the progressive, humanist and pacifist values I hold. That's no surprise to me, and it doesn't stop me from continuing to press forward for positive change, using the new grassroots-empowering fundraising and communication tools to elect more and better Democrats.

              And the fact is: this President has not started any wars of his own (OK, let's add "so far" if you insist). This may seem irrelevant to you when you list his history of "terrible things," but I do not consider it irrelevant.

    •  Isn't this site about "better" Democrats? (8+ / 0-)

      I don't see how criticism of Obama could be problematic here.  Obama has not pursued a progressive agenda.  Maybe he will in his second term, but Guantanamo, drone strikes, the failure of focusing on homeowners for recovery (vs. banks) and many other failures are not the actions of a better Democrat.  He has done some things well but he even describes himself as someone who would have been a moderate Republican in the 60's.  You know, that's not really what I was looking for in 2008, or now.

      In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act--Orwell

      by jhannon on Tue Dec 25, 2012 at 08:52:20 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I agree (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        aliasalias, Just Bob, Sunspots

        what was once unacceptable under Bush, is now ok under Obama.
        Are you supporters even aware of how many innocent civilians are being killed in countries we are not even at war with?
        What the hell are we doing in Yemen, Somalia, Africa, ect?
        If we are so fucking broke that we have to cut social safety nets here in America, they why the hell are we building a huge base in Africa?
        Again on Common Dreams, there is ANOTHER article about a drone wiping out 14 people who were civilians.
        ALmost everyday,, there is an article there about how many innocent civilians were killed by Obama's drones.
        I saw one article the other day about drones, but many days we have diaries with pictures of how cute the 1st Family is.
        He went back on almost every campaign promise he made, yet those of us that criticized him were hr'd.
        He campaigned on how Iraq was the wrong war, yet he voted to fund it.
        And for the last time, he DID NOT end the war in Iraq. The SOFA did that. Until the last minute, he was trying to keep troops there.
        And read again what jhannon just wrote. Look at his failures vs his very few victories.

        America never needed so much in the last election and got so little.

        by snoopydawg on Tue Dec 25, 2012 at 09:48:28 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  well, then get to work helping a better (5+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        skohayes, Cedwyn, Ahianne, Meteor Blades, kat68

        Democrat get into position to run for President next time.

        or get to work registering to vote and getting out to vote the majority of Americans who, no matter which label they use to describe themselves, will vote (when they do vote) for the more progressive candidate, almost always Democratic instead of Republican, and who support progressive ideas like a social safety net as well as a strong Social Security program, regulation of polluters and big banks, etc.

        The site is actually about electing "more and better Democrats" not just "better Democrats." Having a majority of Democrats in both houses of Congress and a Democrat in the White House is good for progressive policies even if not all the Democrats are what we progressives would consider "better" at all times. Diane Feinstein is not a favorite here, for example, and for good reason, but surely most would support her legislation banning the use of land mines by the U.S. or banning "assault rifles"?

        Criticism of Obama happens here all the time. On the rec list and on the front page, especially lately regarding Obama's recent negotiations with the GOP. There's a difference between criticism and "see, I was right all along you people should never bothered to work to get Obama elected in the first place, you are just suckers and cheerleaders, and your strategy is a total failure and instead you should've, um, I dunno, joined me in sitting around and waiting for the American people to wake up, etc. etc. etc."

      •  The closing of Gitmo was blocked (7+ / 0-)

        by Congress in a bipartisan hissy fit joined by both Democrats and Republicans.

        •  This same mentality (8+ / 0-)
          The closing of Gitmo was blocked by Congress in a bipartisan hissy fit joined by both Democrats and Republicans.
          led to the Clinton's healthcare plan not even being able to make it out of committee.

          Think about that.

          Because Hillary Clinton did not properly genuflect to Congress, members of her own party, led by a popular President joined the rival party in opposing comprehensive healthcare reform for  millions of Americans.

          Even though progressives were aware of that at the time, they seemed to have forgotten that same, short-sighted, my-district's-way-or-the-highway mentality never went away as the President tried to thread the needle through the opposing forces of his own party, the rival party, the tea party, pharmaceutical companies and insurance companies.

          The achievement is frequently referred to as a shit sandwich around these parts.

          After four years of watching this nonsense and seeing the President able to implement policies that eluded other presidents, it gives one perspective on diaries like this and supporters of diaries like this that assert liberals have been betrayed or that there is no difference between Romney and the current occupant of the White House.

          The choice of our lifetime: Mitt Romney, It Takes A Pillage or President Barack Obama, Forward Together.

          by FiredUpInCA on Tue Dec 25, 2012 at 10:56:37 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  Obama never claimed (6+ / 0-)

        to be a "progressive", and never claimed he was going to pursue a progressive agenda.
        I don't know where this comes from.
        We had a better chance with Al Gore, but no, he was boring, too much like Clinton, blah blah blah, and we got 8 years of Bush. Remember when Gore talked about protecting Medicare with the surplus left over from Clinton's administration? He wanted to invest in education, health care, revitalizing communities, and had a plan to make SS solvent through 2054.
        People should remember what we went through to get the ACA  and like to blame Obama for not getting a public option rather than the Senators like Lieberman and Conrad and Ben Nelson.
        People remember that 96 Senators voted against closing Guantanamo, yet still blame it not being closed on Obama.
        But just like they forgot about Al Gore, they'll forget that Obama and the Democrats brought this country back from the brink of a financial collapse that would have taken 20 years to recover from, had we  elected a Republican.
        We have gotten a good taste of what Republicans want to do to this country- outlaw abortion, criminalize LGBT, start  wars with Iran and now Syria, cut taxes to the bone and give tax breaks to the rich paid for by cutting food stamps and early education.
        So really, go ahead and gripe about Obama not bailing out homeowners, but on his worst day in office, he is still one thousand times better than any modern day Republican.

        “We are not a nation that says ‘don’t ask, don’t tell.’ We are a nation that says ‘out of many, we are one.’” -Barack Obama

        by skohayes on Tue Dec 25, 2012 at 11:50:45 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I recall people who "saw" "no difference" b/t Bush (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Ahianne, skohayes, Quicklund

          and Gore.  I tend to refer to those people are "fruitcakes."

          But so many "saw" "no difference" between Bush & Gore that they decided to vote for Nader in Florida and, well, we got 3,000 dead Americans who simply wanted to go to work that morning, let alone two wars and a cratered economy.  Aren't they glad that they worked to defeat Gore?  I mean, really, look what they've accomplished!

          I have no patience for the true progressives.  But you're right, people on the far left will lose no opportunity to forget about Bush (they seem to have already done so) and I fear a new resurgences of the frustrati as they give us yet another far-right redneck just because our 2016 candidate will surely prove to be insufficiently pure.

          Meh.  People make me sick.  And the True Progressives have an enormous amount of blood on their hands, from our own people to Iraqi and Afghan civilians.

          "The first drawback of anger is that it destroys your inner peace; the second is that it distorts your view of reality. If you come to understand that anger is really unhelpful, you can begin to distance yourself from anger." - The Dalai Lama

          by auron renouille on Tue Dec 25, 2012 at 04:34:41 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I have no patience -- (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            aliasalias, SpecialKinFlag, ZhenRen

            for people who blather about the "far left."

            People who talk about real solutions for mitigating global warming are on the "far left."  Everyone else drives around waiting for the great burning to occur, while proclaiming "no we're not deniers" as if only their outsized egos were at stake.

            When are y'all going to give up on your parlor games with political labels and start talking about real solutions to real problems?  Oh yeah and:

            I fear a new resurgences of the frustrati as they give us yet another far-right redneck just because our 2016 candidate will surely prove to be insufficiently pure.
            Omigod we might have to blame "true progressives" for our own failures again (remembering the 308,000 Florida Democrats who voted for Bush in 2000) and then we'd have to oppose the President instead of posting pootie diaries about him!  We'd have to pretend to be moral again!  The horrors!

            "On the sidewalk the people are hustling and bustling/ They ain't got no time so they think on the thing/ That will fill in the space in between birth and death" -- Donovan Leitch

            by Cassiodorus on Tue Dec 25, 2012 at 06:25:17 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  So only the issues important to you are "moral?" (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              skohayes, Quicklund, howarddream

              BTW, in every election year, many Democrats will vote for the Republican candidate.  Some Republicans vote for the Democrat.  Many of those registered Democrats are Democrats who haven't been home in a long time, let alone whether or not they will ever go home again.  They're the Zell Millers of the party.  They are unreachable.  They register as Democratic because perhaps their parents were Union members or, particularly in the South (including North Florida), their family was Democratic before we kicked the anti-black Southern Democrats out of the party.

              That doesn't excuse those who voted for Nader.  The ones who voted for Bush were voting for a viable candidate, albeit one who was deeply destructive.  The ones who voted for Nader were making a statement in the way that a person makes a statement by committing vandalism.

              Sorry, but that's what those people are - they're simply vandals, people who damage the fabric of our national community simply because they can.  And then, every few years, they come back to the party and tear it apart from within.

              The Bush voters were at least making a meaningful choice, even if idiotic.  The Nader ones were just pissing into the wind.

              "The first drawback of anger is that it destroys your inner peace; the second is that it distorts your view of reality. If you come to understand that anger is really unhelpful, you can begin to distance yourself from anger." - The Dalai Lama

              by auron renouille on Tue Dec 25, 2012 at 08:27:52 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  The DKos Right has spoken. (0+ / 0-)
                So only the issues important to you are "moral?"
                When did you stop picking your nose?
                The ones who voted for Nader were making a statement in the way that a person makes a statement by committing vandalism.
                I urge you to piss off Nader voters all you want.  I'm sure it's great for the Democratic Party.

                "On the sidewalk the people are hustling and bustling/ They ain't got no time so they think on the thing/ That will fill in the space in between birth and death" -- Donovan Leitch

                by Cassiodorus on Tue Dec 25, 2012 at 08:55:19 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  There really weren't that many of them (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Quicklund, howarddream

                  Just enough to ensure Bush got elected.
                  I don't give a f**k about them, personally.

                  “We are not a nation that says ‘don’t ask, don’t tell.’ We are a nation that says ‘out of many, we are one.’” -Barack Obama

                  by skohayes on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 05:49:37 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Maybe when you go canvassing (0+ / 0-)

                    you can assiduously avoid their houses.  That'll show them!

                    "On the sidewalk the people are hustling and bustling/ They ain't got no time so they think on the thing/ That will fill in the space in between birth and death" -- Donovan Leitch

                    by Cassiodorus on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 07:10:14 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

        •  And yes, people who talk about Guantanamo make (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          FiredUpInCA, skohayes, Quicklund, Cedwyn

          me want to vomit.  The left should be about truth-telling but we can't even tell the truth about ourselves - we have a President who tried to close it but couldn't because Congress  - including our caucus - wouldn't allow him to.  Instead of moaning and groaning about the President trying and failing, we should've instead made clear to our entire caucus how important the issue was.  But that never happened and the GOP dominated the issue, leaving us with breathless screaming about terrorists in Upstate New York or rural Indiana.  Because, you know, we have massive jailbreaks from maximum security prisons all the time.

          That whole debate was foul from the beginning.

          "The first drawback of anger is that it destroys your inner peace; the second is that it distorts your view of reality. If you come to understand that anger is really unhelpful, you can begin to distance yourself from anger." - The Dalai Lama

          by auron renouille on Tue Dec 25, 2012 at 04:38:46 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  "on the ground work for a third party ... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      DeadHead, Cedwyn

      ...alternative? (that's a rhetorical question, mind you, I know the answer based on my own experience with third party politics..."

      Because it's hard work. Invisible, precinct-by-precinct, convince-people-who-are-very-hard-to-convince work that's not as glamorous as, say, running for city councilperson and actually building a résumé of governance.

      Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

      by Meteor Blades on Tue Dec 25, 2012 at 06:01:45 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  The sacred difference between the DLC and the PNAC (0+ / 0-)
      There's been a "not a dime's worth of difference" analysis for 50 years now. Has it moved the country forward?
      About 5% of the country believed in it in its peak year, 2000.  Half of those people got cold feet in the last day before the election and switched their voting preferences from Nader to Gore.  

      Really good scapegoats are very few in number, because then the vast majority of scapegoaters can claim it's not them.

      "On the sidewalk the people are hustling and bustling/ They ain't got no time so they think on the thing/ That will fill in the space in between birth and death" -- Donovan Leitch

      by Cassiodorus on Tue Dec 25, 2012 at 06:16:11 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Why Aren't they Actually Taking Action?! (0+ / 0-)

      Bitching about perceived slights on DKOS 24/7 IS "taking action" to these people.

      I miss Speaker Pelosi :^(

      by howarddream on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 08:34:08 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  malarkey (32+ / 0-)
    Policy-wise, a Romney administration would have been pretty much the same as Obama’s second term.
    And the idea that Romney winning would have built a more progressive left?

    How'd that work out when Bush won instead of Gore?  Was the progressive left any stronger?  Were more progressive policies enacted?

    Such magical thinking.

  •  Romney would never have picked Hagel (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jennifer poole, Chi, highacidity

    Not  with Rumsfeld still alive

    Happy just to be alive

    by exlrrp on Tue Dec 25, 2012 at 07:14:17 AM PST

  •  Actually, it was clear he was conservative (8+ / 0-)

    long before his first term. People who convinced themselves he was the Second Coming of FDR saw only what they wanted to see.

    Whatevs. Hope your day is reasonably happy.

    Pardon our dust. Sig line under renovation.

    by Crashing Vor on Tue Dec 25, 2012 at 07:15:05 AM PST

    •  "conservative"? as opposed to who? (6+ / 0-)

      Obama certainly has many non-conservative values and policies that he talks about and has instituted.

      but, certainly, you are right to point out it was clear -- as he said over and over again -- Obama believed "the" problem in Washington, D.C. was "partisan bickering," and anyone who convinced themselves otherwise did see only what they wanted to see.

      I hope you (and all of us) have a happy day, today, too!

    •  I don't understand why this is so important (10+ / 0-)

      The constant effort to define President Obama as anything but a Democrat. The President is left of center in the Democratic Party. Yet I see a rhetorical comment being used as proof he's a Republican.

      AMA: One issue that Cuban-Americans are worried about is, they believe that you favor a socialist model for our country. Cubans and Venezuelans especially because of what they have gone through. What do you think of that?

      PBO: I don't know that there are a lot of Cubans or Venezuelans, Americans who believe that. The truth of the matter is that my policies are so mainstream that if I had set the same policies that I had back in the 1980s, I would be considered a moderate Republican. I mean, what I believe in is a tax system that is fair. I don't think government can solve every problem. I think that we should make sure that we're helping young people go to school. We should make sure that our government is building good roads and bridges and hospitals and airports so that we have a good infrastructure. I do believe that it makes sense that everyone in America, as rich as this country is, shouldn't go bankrupt because someone gets sick, so the things I believe in are essentially the same things your viewers believe in.

      http://thehill.com/...

      It curious how excited people are over this statement in the context of defining the President versus what he actually said, which was related to policies. Republicans today are extremists. The President is saying his policy proposals are mainstream.

       President Obama was redefining the right to emphasize how crazy the Republican Party has become.

       The President's health care law:

      • Expands Medicaid: http://www.kff.org/...

      • Increases taxes on the rich: http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/...

      • Includes a federal-control clause: http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

      That doesn't include eliminating the middle man from federal student loans, expanding Pell Grants and strengthening Medicare, to name a few.

      If he's "Republican," he's one I can live with.

      As for the past, let's not let rhetoric get the best of reality. Republicans sucked in the 1980s, and there were a lot of Democrats over the last 40 years who also sucked.

      Phil Gramm:

      In 1976, Gramm unsuccessfully challenged Texas Democratic Senator Lloyd M. Bentsen, in the party's senatorial primary. Then in 1978 Gramm successfully ran as a Democrat for Representative from Texas's 6th congressional district, which stretched from the Fort Worth suburbs to College Station. He was reelected to his House seat as a Democrat in 1980.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/...

      Richard Shelby:

      Originally elected as a Democrat, Shelby switched to the Republican Party in 1994 when Republicans gained the majority in Congress midway through President Bill Clinton's first term. He was re-elected by a large margin in 1998 and has faced no significant electoral opposition since.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/...

      Zell Miller:

      Miller crossed party lines and backed Republican President George W. Bush over Democratic nominee John Kerry in the 2004 presidential election.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/...

      •  Here's the money shot, IMO: (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        jhannon, aliasalias

        Democracy - 1 person 1 vote. Free Markets - More dollars more power.

        by k9disc on Tue Dec 25, 2012 at 07:35:07 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I don't do nonsense. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          emelyn, second gen

          Merry Christmas!

        •  from a link that states... (9+ / 0-)
          tragically thwarted by overwhelming pressures. 2008's yes-we-can chanters, dazzled by pigment rather than policy detail, forgot to ask can what?
          you cannot be seriously quoting this!

          oh, the tout jill stein and steve who?

          get real for the new year, how 'bout it!

          •  I think that's a fair assessment (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            cslewis, snoopydawg, Just Bob

            Obama was short on policy details and underprepared on health care reform.  He argued there was no need for an individual mandate when running against HRC who was shaking her head throughout.  

            I was excited about the possibility of a black president--it was and is an important breakthrough.  Hope and Change--yes.  But he skated on details and if you took seriously the rest of the link, you would see that the criticism is supported by fact.

            In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act--Orwell

            by jhannon on Tue Dec 25, 2012 at 08:57:08 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  what IS that symbol for (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              FiredUpInCA, second gen

              rolling eyes?

              sigh.......

            •  I agree (0+ / 0-)

              that he was short on policy details and under-prepared on health care reform. Both Clinton and Edwards published serious and detailed plans early on; Obama's came last and was half-baked and unworkable. It was not even remotely a serious proposal.

              But I don't think his position on the mandate was due to being unprepared. It was a highly cynical political move. He understood as well as everyone else that the mandate was necessary if everyone was to be covered, but he also knew it would be unpopular with the young voters he was pursuing. So he deliberately put forward a plan that he knew could never be implemented. He calculated correctly that few voters were going to take a serious look at any of the proposals but that just the word "mandate" would anger a lot of them.

              This was the moment I knew he was just another creepy politician who would say anything to get elected.

              We decided to move the center farther to the right by starting the whole debate from a far-right position to begin with. - Former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay

              by denise b on Tue Dec 25, 2012 at 02:41:33 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  I don't really care about the acerbic language. (0+ / 0-)

            I care about the quadrant. And it seems to me that Barack Obama is up there in the top right, while I am partial to the bottom left.

            It also strikes me as fair that he has floated higher and drifted Right since 2008 given civil liberties and econ policy.

            Here's the companion piece from 2008:
            http://www.politicalcompass.org/...

            Peace~

            Democracy - 1 person 1 vote. Free Markets - More dollars more power.

            by k9disc on Tue Dec 25, 2012 at 10:52:52 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  The point (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        jhannon, Just Bob

        Is that by being dragged rightward he migh be to the left of the center of the Democratic Party now, but that is divorced from the Democratic Party historically.   He is only on the left if you consider the crushing of the left by the DLC/new Democrats to have been complete.  

        Hay hombres que luchan un dia, y son buenos Hay otros que luchan un año, y son mejores Hay quienes luchan muchos años, y son muy buenos. Pero hay los que luchan toda la vida. Esos son los imprescendibles.

        by Mindful Nature on Tue Dec 25, 2012 at 08:23:09 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  The President is left of center in the Democratic (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        aliasalias, Sunspots

        Party?

        Really?

        He's a New Democrat while the largest caucus in congress is the progressive caucus.

        Just askin'...where do you think the center of the Democratic Party is? Do you believe the Third Way is the center of the Democratic Party?

        Just sayin'...statements like that will drive people out of the Democratic Party.

        Let's consider the origins of chained CPI. In 1995 Republicans gained control of the Senate. They appointed a commission to study the CPI. The chair of that commission was Michael Boskin. It was named after him. Boskin is the T. M. Friedman Professor of Economics and senior fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution.

        So President Obama got the idea of the individual mandate from the Heritage Foundation and chained CPI from the Hoover Institute. I don't believe the center of the Democratic Party can be found at either of those organizations.

        Others have simply gotten old. I prefer to think I've been tempered by time.

        by Just Bob on Tue Dec 25, 2012 at 03:24:23 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  what are you talking about (11+ / 0-)

    what exactly has obama done to make you say he sold the liberals out? you have no talking points in your diary.

      •  Many examples provided in links (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        cslewis, TracieLynn, aliasalias

        you just don't want to consider them.

        In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act--Orwell

        by jhannon on Tue Dec 25, 2012 at 08:57:51 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Where are your examples of REALLY liberal... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        aliasalias, Sunspots

        ACTIONS Obama has taken, as opposed to the speeches he gives before elections.

        After elections, he can't shaft liberals fast enough. Can you say putting SocSec on the table even though it is NOT the problem?

        He can't imprison whistleblowers fast enough. His DOJ  can't find any criminality or conspiracy in the Great Heist of 2008.

        Hell, Richard Nixon was more liberal than Obama; and he was a shit.

        You just don't want to face the truth.

        •  "the truth" is I believe that working to (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Cedwyn, Ahianne

          elect more and better Democrats using grassroots fundraising and communication tools, to push the government to better represent the interest of everyday Americans is by far the best strategy to bring positive change that I have seen in my many years of political activism.

          Far better strategy than trying to organize third party voters (I've tried that, too).

          If you think otherwise, my god man, get to work on your strategy, and stop wasting your time here.

          That doesn't mean I support everything that the government of the United States does, or that Obama does, far from it. I would be foolish to expect that in my lifetime, IMO, but I also believe I would be foolish, selfish and careless to give up fighting, even considering that fact.

          Nixon signed a huge number of vitally important environmental laws, that have made a huge difference, one of them the National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA, which was a huge impetus to the passage of the California Environmental Quality Act, or CEQA. Both NEPA and CEQA have been successfully used by activists I know personally for decades to fight against bad projects here in California. And are still being used. Yes, Nixon was a shit, who could say otherwise?

          anyway, I've had enough for today. Merry Christmas to all, and Happy Chinese Food Day to all, too. One last general statement: I respect anybody who works for positive change in any forum or venue. Key word being "work" not just "talk." Howard Dean said: "Stop complaining and start campaigning," and if you think the best use of your time is to campaign for a third=party alternative, all the more power to you.

          •  I'm not wasting my time here. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            aliasalias, Sunspots

            You yourself said third parties are futile.

            So, I will fight for the wing of the Democratic party that gave us SocSec. I will fight against the corporatist, Third Way crowd that is doing its best to destroy the legacy of the New Deal.

            It is not about "settling" or "purity". It is about the highway robbery of the soc sec system and the plundering privatization of the education system, complete with un-dischargable student loans that steal from your estate, mostly on behalf of private lenders. It is about the brazen immunity given to Wall St. for trillions of dollars of ripoffs. These things were done by Obama, or by his "compromising" and "bipartisanship".

            It is about the refusal to turn FIRST to the bloated defense budget instead of looting Soc Sec.

            As for quoting Howard Dean, I AM campaigning - against the "this shit is really chocolate" viewpoint that you are pushing.

            Have a nice Xmas as we continue to be sold down the river.

            •  arendt, "campaigning" doesn't mean blogging (0+ / 0-)

              or preaching to the choir or getting your jollies off by people uprating your comments, "ain't it awful" or otherwise, on a progressive website.

              Campaigning means working inside the electoral system to increase voter participation and/or get a candidate or a measure elected, by making phone calls, canvassing, helping with fundraisers, or any amount of other volunteer work. There's writing involved, too: plenty of room to help with mailers, ads, fundraising letters, policy statements, etc. Of course florid and colorful insults about shit don't really fit in there! If you're doing that kind of work for any progressive candidate or measure, no matter the party label, hell, if you're engaging outside the choir at all, say with letters to the editor to the local paper pointing out the failures of the American government or society or suggesting changes, then as I say, more power to you. I respect your work.

              And of course there's many who do valuable community work outside of electoral politics: a more informal definition of campaigning might mean working to end hunger in your county, for example. "Work" being the key word.

              If, and it's a big if, amidst all your complaining (we've had the diagnosis for many decades, now, you know?) you come up with any new strategies for working to see that everyday Americans are not "sold down the river" by a government not representing the best interests of everyday people, I'll be the first to listen to you.

    •  Then go read the diary (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Just Bob

      he provided a link for instead of complaining about it.

      America never needed so much in the last election and got so little.

      by snoopydawg on Tue Dec 25, 2012 at 09:51:03 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  For me the question is (12+ / 0-)

    what is the realistic theory of how the liberal agenda would be entirely adopted with no changes?  The GOP controls the house and now has a large number of extremists in it.  People for whom any tax increase at all (even just on income exceeding $1 million) is unthinkable.  Since the House is needed to pass budgets and laws, how is the pure liberal approach now attainable?  It appears the House is not now able to pass anything without the "centrists" from both parties, and the country needs a budget to function.  

    We can go off the fiscal cliff, sure.  But what happens after that?  The underlying decisions still need to be made, and will reappear the next time we need to do a budget or authorize a debt ceiling increase.  Will we say, "let's not do a budget and stop making payments to Social Security recipients, SNAP recipients and holders of our debt?"

    I know what we would have gotten if the GOP won the presidency and both houses of Congress - more tax cuts, repeal of health care reform, huge cuts to all social safety net programs, and moves to "privatize" Medicare and Social Security.  I'm pretty confident we're not going to get all of that either.

    •  Reality is not part of the purist view (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      sebastianguy99, auron renouille

      These purists envy the tea party and their no compromise stances. So I assume the only way they would accept policy is if they got 100% of what they want. When two intransigent forces negotiate, the craziest person in the room negotiation style doesn't work because both would be willing to blow themselves up. Think the nuclear missile crisis.

      That's a hard position to defend, especially when these purists can't even talk to their conservative relatives. They would rather blame their weakness on others. Frankly, I'm glad these folks feel they have no voice, because I don't want them to use tea party negotiation against me and others in the democratic party that doesn't agree with them on 100% of their issues.

    •  Please explain how this is going to happen (0+ / 0-)
      Will we say, "let's not do a budget and stop making payments to Social Security recipients, SNAP recipients and holders of our debt?"

      Others have simply gotten old. I prefer to think I've been tempered by time.

      by Just Bob on Tue Dec 25, 2012 at 03:36:31 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I don't think it would (0+ / 0-)

        I was referring to what would occur if the U.S. didn't technically have the cash to pay its bills and exhausted the accounting tricks to buy time.  We got kind of close to that during the debt ceiling debates.

        If it actually happened I think we'd likely just print the money and inflate the currency, rather than not making payments at all.  Not a good option either.  I suppose we could also take the route California took, and send out IOU's.  Any way you slice it, it's no way to run a country and I wouldn't see any possibility of the end result being that one side gets everything it wants.

      •  The budget bills contain authorizations to spend (0+ / 0-)

        money.  Government shut downs happen when a Congress fails to pass a budget and does not renew the necessary set of authorizations to spend money, depriving the executive branch and the various administrative agencies of the ability to engage in lawful operation.  Most outlays from the federal treasury become unauthorized and illegal, and do not take place.

        That's how that could happen - if a budget deal is walked away from and neither a budget nor a continuing resolution is authorized for FY '12-'13.  That's what will happen if negotiations drag on into summer.

        In the meanwhile, beginning on Jan. 1, all government agencies - not just defense - will see an 8% automatic cut.  States will be hit twice as hard because they will lose both percentages of both their block grants as well as fed-to-state transfer programs such as Medicaid, and will likely begin cutting Medicaid and food assistance almost immediately.  Other programs will begin to ground to a halt after anywhere from 2-6 weeks.

        Although Social Security checks are paid for outside of the budgetary bills, SSA staff is paid for out of the federal budget.  So yes, it will eventually hit the SSA as well, unless you intend to demand that all public employees work without a paycheck.

        "The first drawback of anger is that it destroys your inner peace; the second is that it distorts your view of reality. If you come to understand that anger is really unhelpful, you can begin to distance yourself from anger." - The Dalai Lama

        by auron renouille on Tue Dec 25, 2012 at 04:53:52 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I don't think that's true (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Sunspots
          Although Social Security checks are paid for outside of the budgetary bills, SSA staff is paid for out of the federal budget.  So yes, it will eventually hit the SSA as well, unless you intend to demand that all public employees work without a paycheck.
          There may be a reduction in program management costs that could force some layoffs, but it wouldn't shut down the Social Security Administration.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/...

          The Budget Control Act was a compromise intended to resolve a dispute concerning the public debt ceiling. Some major programs, like Social Security, Medicaid, federal pay (including military pay and pensions), and veterans' benefits, are exempted from the spending cuts.
          The operative wording is "federal pay...exempted from the spending cuts."

          Others have simply gotten old. I prefer to think I've been tempered by time.

          by Just Bob on Tue Dec 25, 2012 at 05:38:13 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  When Republicans are blocking everything that (0+ / 0-)

      doesn't help plutocrats and hurt the rest of America is exactly the time to stand firmly in opposition to them.  Nothing is getting done anyway, so you might as well bank good political will that will help you take back the House in the next round of elections.

  •  At what point... (13+ / 0-)

    Is it time to simply assume the people hawking this tripe are simply against Obama for one reason or another, and no matter what, will hate him and decry him as a sellout?

    I'd say well past time, but I am undoubtably an 'obot' or whatever the slur is this week.

    "The curve of the universe is long, but bends towards justice'.

    by SirNitram on Tue Dec 25, 2012 at 07:21:14 AM PST

  •  Gracie has been told that the kids and... (4+ / 0-)

    ...their families are about to arrive.

    Now she's driving us crazy in anticipation so I told her to go blog for a while. No dice.

    (dog)

    "This is NOT what I thought I'd be when I grew up."

    by itzik shpitzik on Tue Dec 25, 2012 at 07:21:25 AM PST

  •  What? Obama hasn't fixed the corporate (8+ / 0-)

    take over of the world yet? I should pay more attention.

    We're fools whether we dance or not, so we might as well dance.

    by PowWowPollock on Tue Dec 25, 2012 at 07:22:05 AM PST

  •  I am as critical of Obama (13+ / 0-)

    as anybody, but I stop listening when people try to argue Mitt Romney would've been better. About 60 million more people would lose healthcare with the repeal of the ACA and block granting Medicaid. And that's just the beginning...so spare me.

  •  We gotta read this shit (8+ / 0-)

    even on Christmas? Fuck off.

    "A lie is not the other side of a story; it's just a lie."

    by happy camper on Tue Dec 25, 2012 at 07:25:44 AM PST

  •  Obama sold out? (4+ / 0-)

    Hope you got a nice big box of Pampers for Xmas.

  •  Re: the replies to this diary (4+ / 0-)

    Give me hope that I may once again come to Dkos and enjoy the visit....keep calling out the c-trolls guys...even the big ones.

    "Fascism is attracting the dregs of humanity- people with a slovenly biography - sadists, mental freaks, traitors." - ILYA EHRENBURG

    by durrati on Tue Dec 25, 2012 at 07:37:53 AM PST

    •  Good grief. It's not trolling (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      aliasalias, Sunspots

      to criticize a lack of progressive policies.  Throughout his first administration Obama caved to the Republicans on a wide array of issues.  We need to make the case for progressive policies, support him when he resists caving, and react quickly when it looks like he's going to negotiate as badly as he did in his first term.

      In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act--Orwell

      by jhannon on Tue Dec 25, 2012 at 09:25:42 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Good grief. It's not caving (5+ / 0-)

        to get through a fucking host of items on the progressive agenda, including nuclear arms reduction, equal pay for equal work, hate crimes legislation, expanding access to healthcare for the poor, extending UI benefits, ending DADT, refusing to defend DOMA,  stimulus spending that proved Keynes right again, aid to native Americans and AA farmers, and the list does not end there.

        The reason IT APPEARS he negotiated badly is the fact he had to deal with this teaparty House and Mitch McConnell who would have been perfectly content to not allow him to do anything at all.

        And we don't even know the demands they made in private.

        Some of ya'll will never be happy with anything he does.

        "Fascism is attracting the dregs of humanity- people with a slovenly biography - sadists, mental freaks, traitors." - ILYA EHRENBURG

        by durrati on Tue Dec 25, 2012 at 10:47:39 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  He needs to learn from first term (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Sunspots

          I think Pelosi deserves much more credit than Obama for health insurance reform, and one doesn't have to be too close to inside politics to recognize how she keep his feet to the fire when he was ready to cave.  The concessions to Big Pharma were tough to take.

          He didn't make a strong enough case to the public for HCRA and his failure to do so contributed to a tremendous beating in 2010.  The stimulus spending was insufficient to produce a recovery.  Paul Krugman beat the drum almost daily for what needed to be done.

          Obama has been overly cautious in many areas and has deferred to the military and intelligence agencies in many others.  He came in as an inexperienced politician at the national level.  Now he has experience so there's reason to hope that he will be bolder now and more effective.  But if he's really a "moderate Republican" we'll have more reasons to be disappointed.

          In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act--Orwell

          by jhannon on Tue Dec 25, 2012 at 07:11:12 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Well Said! (0+ / 0-)

          I miss Speaker Pelosi :^(

          by howarddream on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 08:59:30 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  Hello? (5+ / 0-)

        Can you say "Congress"?
        I thought you could.
        The president can't pass his agenda without support from Congress. Please try and remember that.

        “We are not a nation that says ‘don’t ask, don’t tell.’ We are a nation that says ‘out of many, we are one.’” -Barack Obama

        by skohayes on Tue Dec 25, 2012 at 12:03:45 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  You can add to this (3+ / 0-)

          When the President can go around congress then they basically go back to what he did and defund the program.  He tired to expand the VA and the Republicans forced the issue and defunded it.

          If at first you don't succeed, vote Teapublicans out and try again. You have to be persistent if you want anything out of life.

          by Final Frame on Tue Dec 25, 2012 at 12:24:33 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Silly snarker (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Sunspots

          Sarcasm seldom demonstrates a strong position.  Obama has not only bee a poor negotiator (man, I thought that was understood on this site!) but he failed to make a case to the public for Obamacare.  If one is going to push controversial legislation through Congress, the critical audience is the nation, not just a few Republicans in the House.

          In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act--Orwell

          by jhannon on Tue Dec 25, 2012 at 03:57:01 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  A poor negotiator (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            durrati, Cedwyn

            who nonetheless passed the biggest stimulus in US history, passed the first national health care bill in US history, got rid of DADT, passed Wall Street reform, ended the war in Iraq and plans to remove combat troops from Afghanistan next year, killed Osama Bin Laden, saved GM from bankruptcy, invested more in green energy that any other president, took banks as middlemen away from the student loan program, boosted fuel efficiency standards to the highest level yet, increased support for veterans, installed two center left Liberal women on the Supreme Court, and passed a new START treaty, all despite record obstructionism from the Republican senators and the House.
            I could go on, but you get my point.

            “We are not a nation that says ‘don’t ask, don’t tell.’ We are a nation that says ‘out of many, we are one.’” -Barack Obama

            by skohayes on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 05:57:59 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

  •  The only person who can say something like (8+ / 0-)

    this with a straight face:

    I wouldn’t be so sure.

    Policy-wise, a Romney administration would have been pretty much the same as Obama’s second term. Who knows, he might have picked Chuck Hagel as Defense Secretary.

    In terms of building the political Left, a President Romney would have galvanized liberals and progressives to fight for a fairer society that treats everyone equally and with dignity. Obama, his sellouts, and his faux liberal apologists represent two steps backwards for progressivism.

    ...Can only be a white male guy past his 40's who's relatively well off and who loves to pretend he's a liberal. I wish that sometimes, these white guys and the people who want to impersonate them knew when to shut their mouths.
    •  funny how most of the "not a dime's worth of (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      FloraLine, jan4insight, edrie, FiredUpInCA

      difference" folks are of the male gender, isn't it? I mean the proselytizers, who are known, and those in my personal life, too.

    •  They always claim having the other side win would (6+ / 0-)

      strengthen the liberals while the opposite has been happening for over 30 years. That idiotic idea has pushed the pols farther right to get elected. People vote for the winning side and start shifting. We have lost more elections- state& federal houses and governorships/presidencies due to this rigid and grandly self congratulating BS.  I guess it is normal for the left to have its version of tea baggers : rigid idealogues who have an agenda they fantasize that everyone outside thier personal bubble supports... I don't know how they figure that they are going to turn everyone into compliant servile adjuncts to their ideals. Personally sometimes reading thier crap makes me want to run the other way.

      Fear is the Mind Killer...

      by boophus on Tue Dec 25, 2012 at 08:31:50 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  They're the "I've got mine" people. (0+ / 0-)

      For whatever reason, be it wealth or apathy or anything else, they've got theirs so they don't have to concern themselves with actual policy - Rome can burn for want of a public option because they've already got theirs.

      "The first drawback of anger is that it destroys your inner peace; the second is that it distorts your view of reality. If you come to understand that anger is really unhelpful, you can begin to distance yourself from anger." - The Dalai Lama

      by auron renouille on Tue Dec 25, 2012 at 04:57:50 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Well, other than the fact that (0+ / 0-)

      I'm in my 40's rather than past them, you've described me fairly well demographically, although I wouldn't say what the diarist has said.

      "I have more than two prablems" - The Coach Z

      by AaronInSanDiego on Tue Dec 25, 2012 at 09:36:43 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I guarantee you EPA would look different (9+ / 0-)

    under Romney as compared to Obama.

    I'll take the Obama EPA any day. Even with the compromising.

    Refuge Watch -- news from America's national wildlife refuges

    by Naturegal on Tue Dec 25, 2012 at 07:39:42 AM PST

  •  The President has Boehner boxed in (7+ / 0-)

    President Obama's hand was strengthened simply by winning the election, but it's further strengthened by the nature of the deficit negotiations.

    January is important for two reasons if no deal is reached:

    1. The tax cuts expire.

    2. Sequestration ($1 trillion Budget Control Act), which includes $500 billion in defense cuts, automatically kicks in.

    The two are linked in the current proposal. The President is saying: Let's pass the tax cuts for incomes under $250,000 and lay the groundwork for reaching a deal later (that's the part to avoid sequestration).

    To override sequestration, the deal has to produce at least $1.2 trillion in deficit reduction and be enacted in January.

    <...>

    The Budget Control Act of 2011 (enacted on August 2 as Public Law 112-25) made several changes to federal programs and established budget enforcement mechanisms—including caps on future discretionary appropriations—that were estimated to reduce federal budget deficits by a total of at least $2.1 trillion over the 2012–2021 period. The caps on discretionary appropriations will decrease spending (including debt-service costs) by an estimated $0.9 trillion during that period, compared with what such spending would have been if annual appropriations had grown at the rate of inflation. At least another $1.2 trillion in deficit reduction was anticipated from provisions related to a newly established Congressional Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction. That committee is charged with proposing legislation to trim budget deficits by at least $1.5 trillion between 2012 and 2021. However, if legislation originating from the committee and estimated to produce at least $1.2 trillion in deficit reduction (including an allowance for interest savings) is not enacted by January 15, 2012, automatic procedures for cutting both discretionary and mandatory spending will take effect. The magnitude of those cuts would depend on any shortfall in the estimated effects of such legislation relative to the $1.2 trillion amount.

    http://www.cbo.gov/...


    Republicans, like it or not, and despite their House majority, have to deal on the President's terms. A comprehensive deal gets no Republican support in the House.

    Republicans don't want the defense cuts to go through and they also don't want the tax cuts for the rich to expire.

    If the tax cuts expire, President Obama can confidently propose new middle class tax cuts.

    Can you see Republicans pushing to pass new tax cuts for the rich after sequestration kicks in? Can you see them doing it under any circumstance?

    Obama’s “small deal” could lead to bigger tax increases

    Posted by Ezra Klein

    <...>

    But the most important insight into the White House’s strategic thinking comes when Boehner says to the president, ”I put $800 billion (in tax revenue) on the table. What do I get for that?” Obama’s response is cold and telling. ”You get nothing,” the president said. “I get that for free.”

    That, right there, is the central fact of negotiations for the Democrats and the central problem for the Republicans....The White House already has some $700 billion in the bank, as they see it. The reason to negotiate with Boehner is that an agreement with him could, in theory, push that number well above $1 trillion while stabilizing the debt and avoiding the economic pain of falling off the fiscal cliff. But there’s no reason to cut a deal with Boehner in which the White House gives up spending cuts in order to get a tax increase they can have anyway.

    <...>

    The talk in Washington now is about a “small deal.” That would likely include the Senate tax bill, some policy to turn off at least the defense side of the sequester and a handful of other policies to blunt or delay various parts of the fiscal cliff...Some time in the next month or so, the small deal would pass and the White House would pocket that $700-plus billion in tax revenue...But pressure would quickly mount to strike a larger deal, both because there would be another fiscal cliff coming and because the debt ceiling would need to be raised...The White House would insist that the next deal includes a 1:1 ratio of tax increases — all of which could come through Republican-friendly tax reform — to spending cuts. So a subsequent deal that included $600 billion or $700 billion in spending cuts would also include $600 billion or $700 billion in tax increases, leading to total new revenue in the range of $1.2 trillion to $1.4 trillion.

    <...>

    All of which is to say, if Boehner had taken the White House’s deal in 2011, he could’ve stopped the tax increase at $800 billion. If he took their most recent deal, he could stop it at $1.2 trillion. But if he insists on adding another round to the negotiations — one that will likely come after the White House pockets $700 billion in tax increases — then any deal in which gets the entitlement cuts he wants is going to mean a deal in which he accepts even more tax increases than the White House is currently demanding.

    Today, Boehner wishes he’d taken the deal the president offered him in 2011. A year from now, he might wish he’d taken the deal the president offered him in 2012.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

    Too late.
    Obama to Boehner: No Backsies

    <...>

    During one session in the Capitol with White House's legislative liaison Rob Nabors, Mr. Loper from the Boehner camp asked, referring to a near-deal during last year's debt-ceiling fight: "Can you get back into the zone of where you were in July 2011?"

    "No," Mr. Nabors replied. "We were probably overextended then, and there's no way we would do it now." [...]

    Mr. Boehner said he wanted a deal along the lines of what the two men had negotiated in the summer of 2011 in a fight over raising the debt ceiling. "You missed your opportunity on that," the president told him.

    Nabors actually raises a fascinating counterfacual here. Had Boehner said yes to Obama's 2011 offer, would it have passed? Obviously Boehner rejected it in part because there was tons of opposition to it in his caucus. But the administration really was arguably overextended in terms of what House Democrats would deliver meaningful votes for. Even folks like Jonathan Chait who generally back Obama's tactical approach thought that deal offer was a bridge too far.

    http://www.slate.com/...

  •  Dear diarist, could you point out the point of (6+ / 0-)

    your diary? Because if there is one, I missed it.

    He who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.

    by Sophie Amrain on Tue Dec 25, 2012 at 07:41:19 AM PST

  •  Ridiculous (9+ / 0-)
    This, remember, was the president who was supposed to bust out as an FDR-style crusading liberal
    In what universe was Obama "supposed to" bust out as an FRD-style crusading liberal? In Fantasy-land, maybe.
    •  These are the same people (0+ / 0-)

      who were wild about Obama during the primaries and never listened to a word he said.
      Obama's history tells the tale of a centrist Democrat who liked to get things done by compromising. With Republicans.
      Somehow that fact always got ignored.

      “We are not a nation that says ‘don’t ask, don’t tell.’ We are a nation that says ‘out of many, we are one.’” -Barack Obama

      by skohayes on Tue Dec 25, 2012 at 12:07:34 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I think its part of the enviroment we are in (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        auron renouille

        Conservatives see him as an ultra liberal out to destroy American family values and some of the far left see him as a conservative (funny enough).  There in lies the problem.  In the spectrum of political ideology there are more then just 2 degrees of it.  The President is in a nice big grey area between conservative and liberal.

        If at first you don't succeed, vote Teapublicans out and try again. You have to be persistent if you want anything out of life.

        by Final Frame on Tue Dec 25, 2012 at 12:28:20 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  wrong T day (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    auron renouille

    today is tuesday, not thursday.

    Please don't dominate the rap, Jack, if you got nothin' new to say - Grateful Dead

    by Cedwyn on Tue Dec 25, 2012 at 07:56:05 AM PST

  •  hey since this diary thread is pretty lively (0+ / 0-)

    I'm going to go off-topic and share a really fun (and frustrating) online quiz a co-worker shared with me. Part "intelligence" and "creativity" test, I guess, and part just sheer guesswork. I've been really enjoying it (still have a long way to go, though).

    http://www.theimpossiblequiz.net/...

  •  This is news? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Don midwest

    By his own admission the man is a moderate Republican.  He no more sold out liberals than he sold out the Teaparty.  Since he was never part of either group, he was never going to push those ideas. Better than Romney? Sure.  Liberal? Nope

    Hay hombres que luchan un dia, y son buenos Hay otros que luchan un año, y son mejores Hay quienes luchan muchos años, y son muy buenos. Pero hay los que luchan toda la vida. Esos son los imprescendibles.

    by Mindful Nature on Tue Dec 25, 2012 at 08:11:48 AM PST

    •  I think you missed something (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Cedwyn, FiredUpInCA, AaronInSanDiego

      (big surprise there, no?)

      The truth of the matter is that my policies are so mainstream that if I had set the same policies that I had back in the 1980s, I would be considered a moderate Republican.
      He's making a comment about Republicans here, not himself.

      “We are not a nation that says ‘don’t ask, don’t tell.’ We are a nation that says ‘out of many, we are one.’” -Barack Obama

      by skohayes on Tue Dec 25, 2012 at 12:12:41 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  he didn't sell out this liberal Democrat... (9+ / 0-)

    ...so am not sure exactly which liberal Democrats you have polled to make this ludicrously fact-deprived claim.

    President Obama has not sold out this liberal Democrat and, overall, he didn't seell out this liberal Democrat in his first term (although there were several things he did that were very disappointing to me...overall most of what he did was beneficial).

    In fact, President Obama has stood firmer than any Demoratic president since Franklin Roosevelt. He has ruled out privatization of Social Security (which has been the mantra of many Republicans and conservative Democrats for decades). He has ruled out raising the retirement age for Social Security and Medicare (which has been the mantra of Republicans and conservative Democrats for decades). In fact, he has ruled out reducing basic benefits for Social Security and Medicare recipients.

    The one thing he did do is to float a trial balloon about possible, unspecified negotiating over future cost-of-living increases (over which many hysterically irrational liberals are claiming that the "Sky is Falling" (if there's one thing Republicans can always count on, its the lunatic left fringe to get hysterical and claim the "Sky is Falling" at the drop of a hat...it's how the lunatic left actually aids and abets the radical right...unbeknownst to them, they are so myopic in their viewpoint)).

    So...the next time you claim to be speaking for the entire left of this country...could you actually provide specifics to prove that you are actually speaking accurately on behalf of most, if not all liberals?

    Because this particular liberal feels that  your claim that President Obama has sold himself out is completely inaccurate and doesn't remotely come close to expressing this liberal's views.

    (Thanks for this Christmas present you've conveyed to us on behalf of the folks at Red State...you are doing their bidding just as they'd hoped.)

  •  Dear diarist, maybe you and this fellow (8+ / 0-)

    can commiserate:

    Last minute shoppers can still buy gift certificates at my Handmade Gallery on Zibbet. Season's Greetings from me :)

    by jan4insight on Tue Dec 25, 2012 at 08:32:27 AM PST

  •  Ted Rall is to the left of (0+ / 0-)

    Michael Moore.

    "Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." --M. L. King "You can't fix stupid" --Ron White -6.00, -5.18

    by zenbassoon on Tue Dec 25, 2012 at 08:46:09 AM PST

  •  I think we can all agree on one thing (0+ / 0-)

    that the greatest holiday gift of all is that we have a coalition where we do not need to rely on the approval of the left-wing-nuts to win elections any more.  

    Can you imagine how jealous the pragmatic conservative republicans are?  I mean the ones that haven't joined the Obama coalition yet.  Those five lonely people (I think John Roberts may be one?).

  •  I hope the diarist voted for Mitt RMoney (4+ / 0-)

    I hope the Diarist voted for Mitt Romney. This would have been very consistent with his own theory that a Romney win would have energized the Democrats in 2016.

    How did the Bush win in 2000 (Thanks Mr. Ralf Nader) energized the democrats? Let's see:
    +Tax cuts for the rich which have have pushed the country at the brink of bankruptcy. Now we have to spend political capital trying to get back to the Clinton achievements, instead of moving forward with a progressive agenda
    +Invasion of Iraq, which has cost 3000+ American lives and thousands of injured.
    +Repeal of the Assault Weapon Ban ...
    + I could go on and on ...

    How did the 2010 "stay at home elections" by the Democrats help energize more progressives?
    +Republicans takeover of the House
    +Republican takeover of the states, which led to Gerrymandering and now almost impossible to win the house again
    +Just look at the following states: MI,OH, PA, WI, NC, ...

    Mr. Diarist ... Your strategy is just NOT good.
    Will you campaign and vote in 2013, 2014 for the Democrats?

    •  Obama voted to fund (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      aliasalias, Sunspots

      the Iraq war.
      He extended the Bush tax cuts.
      The Patriot act.
      Pushed for the NDAA where many journalists are suing because they are afraid they will be locked up.
      His DHS helped destroy OWS.
      Maybe if Obama had kept even 50% of his campaign promises, people wouldn't have stayed at home.
      Starting with his promise to filibuster the FISA vote, then turned around and voted for it.
      read the article. Open your mind.

      America never needed so much in the last election and got so little.

      by snoopydawg on Tue Dec 25, 2012 at 09:56:29 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Obama accomplishments ... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        FiredUpInCA

        Here are Obama's accomplishment and maybe you can tell us how many of these accomplishments would have done by the Republican President.

        Contrary to the Republican party, the Democratic Party is a big tent party. Being big tent means that, lots of people find a home in the Democratic party. Liberals are just a small portion of that big tent. I really hope some people will finally understand it. If you want a monolithic party ... the Republican Party is still there.

      •  His DHS helped destroy OWS? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        auron renouille

        No, OWS helped destroy OWS.

        “We are not a nation that says ‘don’t ask, don’t tell.’ We are a nation that says ‘out of many, we are one.’” -Barack Obama

        by skohayes on Tue Dec 25, 2012 at 12:16:19 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yeah, never happened. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Sunspots, Don midwest

          I'm sure it's all just a rumor.

          "On the sidewalk the people are hustling and bustling/ They ain't got no time so they think on the thing/ That will fill in the space in between birth and death" -- Donovan Leitch

          by Cassiodorus on Tue Dec 25, 2012 at 06:39:23 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  OWS was done. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            howarddream

            Had OWS been able to coordinate a coherent message, they could have done it standing in Zucotti Park or in their own homes. The protests became more about occupation of certain areas and not about meeting political goals.
            While their message was good, they couldn't coordinate on goals, or leadership or political process. Talk to ten protesters across the country, you would get 10 completely different messages.
            Without leadership and ways to get what they were asking for, they made themselves irrelevant.

            “We are not a nation that says ‘don’t ask, don’t tell.’ We are a nation that says ‘out of many, we are one.’” -Barack Obama

            by skohayes on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 06:04:17 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  On this subject (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              ZhenRen, Agathena, joe shikspack

              you don't know what the f you are talking about.  It's clear that you were not part of that movement.  It was gaining momentum when Obama and his Homeland Security department and FBI decided to treat it like a terrorist group and went to great lengths coordinating with city law enforcement to shut it down.  

              Narrow minded people who can only think of things in electoral terms think that OWS had no coherent message and no leadership.  People who were involved and who have their eyes open, and who are not bound up in hyperpartisanship realize that OWS changed the national conversation, had (and still has) a message that resonated with a broad swath of Americans regarding income inequality and criminal banks that this president has protected.  

              Your (and others) comments throughout this whole diary are toxic and hateful.  It's a shame that you can't see any other way of doing things other than your own narrow minded views.

              Reading through the comments in this diary is very informative.  Bashing imagined enemies because they don't worship your hero, all through the day on Christmas day.   How disgusting.  People just kept piling on with almost no opposition.  And yet you all claim that critics of the current state of the Democratic party are the hateful ones.  This diary shows what the real story is.  What's the matter with all of you anyway?  I thought you were all joyous and happy and still reeling from a success in November?  Why are you so angry and hateful that you all spend your Christmas morning attacking and raging on a blog when there was hardly even anyone  fighting back or even around here paying attention to this nonsense?  What's up with that?  If this past November was such a success for the party and the country, why would you even let any criticisms bother you?  If your list of great achievements is valid, why would any discussion by people who think there has been a great sell out anger you in the least?  You should be celebrating victories, right?

              If cutting Social Security is no big deal, why are so many people so viciously defensive about it?  Hey, Third Way neoliberal policies are the greatest thing from the greatest president there ever was, right?  The country loves having this program attacked while letting criminal banks off scot free and fighting endless imperial wars, right?

              And your list above of great achievements... you are really reaching there.  For instance, Wall Street reform legislation? wtf? Are you kidding me?  I could go on but it's clear that you are not worth wasting time on.  Go on with your anger and rage on holiday mornings fighting and bashing people.  Politicians are not your BFF.  I wonder when hyperpartisans  will finally realize that.   I would guess... never.


              "Justice is a commodity"

              by joanneleon on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 07:49:57 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

    •  Idiocy and lies. (0+ / 0-)

      A) Gore lost far more Democratic votes to Bush than Nader got in Florida.  Gore lost the election before Nader even got there.

      B) Dems didn't 'stay at home' in 2010.  They had normal voting patterns for midterm elections.

      Enough with the zombie lies.  The people who uprated that claptrap should be ashamed of themselves.

  •  Merry Christmas Don. (7+ / 0-)

    I remember many saying this almost four years ago and the pushback was "it's not even been 100 days yet".  That was around April 2009.  Nothing has changed.  No, actually it's gotten worse.  We had the Occupy for a while but now there is hardly any "activism" on the issues, everyone's just waiting to see what our politicians will do, again.  Many said after the election they would push Obama and Congress to do the right things.  From the looks of how the budget negotiations are going, that doesn't look like it will happen, at least for now.  We'll see what happens after they make their decisions.  

    "The Global War on Terror is a justification for U.S. Imperialism. It must be stopped."

    by BigAlinWashSt on Tue Dec 25, 2012 at 09:23:07 AM PST

    •  Gee, you were willing to give him amost a whole (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      skohayes, FiredUpInCA

      100 days? That was mighty open minded of you.

      I remember "primary Obama!" diaries popping up here even before the first inaugural.

    •  LOL (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      FiredUpInCA

      The Obama sux crowd got a very early start.
      And you guys wonder why no one takes you seriously.

      “We are not a nation that says ‘don’t ask, don’t tell.’ We are a nation that says ‘out of many, we are one.’” -Barack Obama

      by skohayes on Tue Dec 25, 2012 at 12:18:35 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  As I recall, they started before the inauguration. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        FiredUpInCA, skohayes

        They saw that Republicans were invited to the inauguration (Rick Warren, who although always disagreeable was not as nucking futs as he is today) and threw a temper tantrum, and they haven't stopped ever since then.

        "The first drawback of anger is that it destroys your inner peace; the second is that it distorts your view of reality. If you come to understand that anger is really unhelpful, you can begin to distance yourself from anger." - The Dalai Lama

        by auron renouille on Tue Dec 25, 2012 at 05:02:31 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Easy to say, as a man, since you wouldn't be (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    elmo, FiredUpInCA, skohayes, highacidity

    waiting for the other shoe to drop on abortion rights.

    Also, Chuck Hagel is such a poor example of what you're talking about.  He's not itching to bomb Iran, so there's not a chance in hell Romney would have chosen him.  There's a lot wrong with Hagel, but he's certainly not overly hawkish on Iran.  

    •  Everyone knows that (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      skohayes, Final Frame, Ahianne

      Mitt Romney and President to-the-right-of-Nixon Obama were ideological twins on gay rights too.

      He hasn't really done anything progressive like trying to wipe out homelessness among veterans in 10 years, comprehensive healthcare reform, or doubling fuel efficiency of cars, or creating the Consumer Financial Protection Agency or being a sitting President endorsing same-sex marriage.

      I mean they guy has just not done a single liberal or progressive thing in 4 years other than allegedly floating chained CPI.

      The choice of our lifetime: Mitt Romney, It Takes A Pillage or President Barack Obama, Forward Together.

      by FiredUpInCA on Tue Dec 25, 2012 at 11:08:36 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  boo fucking hoo--you and Cenk feel betrayed.. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Cedwyn, FiredUpInCA

    My best guess was a reflection that did not look back, an image lost in every mirror.

    by Zacapoet on Tue Dec 25, 2012 at 10:47:58 AM PST

  •  The democratic party is "big tent" (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Cedwyn, FiredUpInCA

    The democratic party is still a big tent party and I'm proud, our party is inclusive of people with various backgrounds and thinking.
    I would hate for our party to become ... like the Republican Party, where it is "My way or the highway" for most of its people.
    I'm proud of the Accomplishments of the President.
    I don't agree with him on everything, but I know that deep down in his heard, he is closer to my ideals than any Republican would ever be.  

  •  What the everloving hell are you babbling about? (0+ / 1-)
    Recommended by:
    Hidden by:
    ZhenRen

    This exact same fervid word-salad of petulant betrayal ideology was said about Roosevelt whom you accuse Obama of not being.  No one's going to remember these deranged rants from the bleachers - just the millions of people whose lives have been tangibly improved by the Obama administration's bold initiatives.  And if you think you can do better, do it, fuck nuts.

    In Roviet Union, money spends YOU.

    by Troubadour on Tue Dec 25, 2012 at 12:51:30 PM PST

  •  Another call for 'activism' from an 'activist' (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    auron renouille, Cedwyn

    who, as far as we can tell, is only active posting links to books and articles he's read, written by others who just write too.

    I'm still waiting for primary and election diaries from the DFH/Frustrati crowd.

    The Mayans knew about Chained CPI!!!!

    by GoGoGoEverton on Tue Dec 25, 2012 at 01:52:27 PM PST

    •  Where the hell would we all be if Edwards had won? (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      GoGoGoEverton, FiredUpInCA, Cedwyn

      Probably preparing for the Romney inaugural, after having lost this election by massive numbers once all of his lies and secrets were exposed by the press early in the Edwards administration.

      "The first drawback of anger is that it destroys your inner peace; the second is that it distorts your view of reality. If you come to understand that anger is really unhelpful, you can begin to distance yourself from anger." - The Dalai Lama

      by auron renouille on Tue Dec 25, 2012 at 05:04:51 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Don't you have (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ZhenRen, Agathena

      anything better to do on Christmas day than to run around attacking your imagined DFH/frustrati enemies?  

      You should be celebrating the victory in November, right?  You should be happy that the Democratic party is finally going to be able to cut entitlement programs, right?  You should be happy that the party that defended the working class for decades can finally have its neoliberal 1% policies and wars, oil and gas industry friendly policies, protect criminal banks and attack whistleblowers, and still get reelected.  This is a great victory for you.  

      Why are you so angry and why so focused on a small group of people who don't follow you around attacking you the way that you do to them?  I don't understand why the victorious pragmatic progressives are so angry and raging that they would spend their Christmas morning and Christmas day posting comments on a blog when there was hardly even anyone here to fight with.  

      And seriously, what's with your obsession about DFH/frustrati, Gogogo?  Nobody ever bothers with you.  Why do you follow this group around constantly looking to pick a fight?  Can't you find a violent video game or something to get out your frustrations?  And I really still can't understand what your frustrations are.  You should be celebrating.   This president will never need votes again, so why is a little criticism such a big deal to you?


      "Justice is a commodity"

      by joanneleon on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 08:02:24 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  lol (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        howarddream
        run around attacking your imagined DFH/frustrati enemies?  
        You should be happy that the Democratic party is finally going to be able to cut entitlement programs, right?  You should be happy that the party that defended the working class for decades can finally have its neoliberal 1% policies and wars, oil and gas industry friendly policies, protect criminal banks and attack whistleblowers, and still get reelected.  This is a great victory for you.  
        small group of people who don't follow you around attacking you the way that you do to them?
        Can't you find a violent video game or something to get out your frustrations?
        lolpersonalattackinsamecommentsayingi'mneverattacked

        Chickenshit tactic by the way joanneleon; you would've never left this message in a diary with any eyes on it.

        The Mayans knew about Chained CPI!!!!

        by GoGoGoEverton on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 10:48:55 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I read through the comments here this morning, (0+ / 0-)

          and when I saw your shit stirring, I called you on it, as I will whenever I see it if it is directed at me or at groups I am associated with.

          Here is your comment:

          Another call for 'activism' from an 'activist' (1+ / 0-)
          who, as far as we can tell, is only active posting links to books and articles he's read, written by others who just write too.

          I'm still waiting for primary and election diaries from the DFH/Frustrati crowd.

          Do you see anything in this diary about the DFH or frustrati groups?  Not one thing.  Your martyr game is pretty ineffective when it's clear that you initiated this.

          Stop smearing DFH/frustrati, Gogo.  Also, while we're talking, I'll ask you to stay out of our community diaries too where you show up fairly often to stir shit.  This is a big site.  You can find plenty of other people to stir shit with.  Or start one of your smear campaigns against some other group and see what kind of response you get.

          In your comment, you are also showing your ignorance about activism.  When you say this about the diarist and about the DFH and frustrat groups:

          is only active posting links to books and articles he's read, written by others who just write too
          You are insulting the diarist who is a lifelong activist who I know for a fact does a lot of things outside of this blog and has for decades.  He's also one of the most well read people on dkos that I'm aware of and he takes the time to share what he's read and information about lectures and events that he has attended with others.  This is what activists do, Gogo.   He also goes out of his way to help to promote authors of books.  He gets out and interacts with authors, artists and activists in real life and provides different kinds of support for them.  I think he has also been active with his local D party for a long time.  He's not the only one among the group you are smearing who is active in many other things outside of this blog.

          Writing election diaries is not the only way to influence and effect change.  This blog is not the center of the universe.  When I'm outside of here engaging in various forms of activism locally, at campaign events for different candidates I have supported and in more than one city at different events, most people I talk to have never even heard of dkos.  So your opinion that a person who doesn't write election diaries is not a good enough activist for you is unsurprisingly ill informed.  And it's no surprise that a person who demeans reading and sharing information is ignorant.


          "Justice is a commodity"

          by joanneleon on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 12:01:50 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  Obama self-describes as both a "Blue Dog Democrat" (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Just Bob, aliasalias, Sunspots, ZhenRen

    and a "New Democrat," (corporatist/business Dem).

    Here's the excerpts/links:

    "Debt-Busting Issue May Force Obama Off The Fence," NYT,  Matt Bai.

    " . . . Privately, Mr. Obama has described himself, at times, as essentially a Blue Dog Democrat, referring to the shrinking caucus of fiscally conservative members of the party."
    and,

    Obama:  'I Am A New Democrat.', Politico, Jonathan Martin.

    President Barack Obama firmly resists ideological labels, but at the end of a private meeting with a group of moderate Democrats on Tuesday afternoon, he offered a statement of solidarity.

    “I am a New Democrat,” he told the New Democrat Coalition, according to two sources at the White House session.

    What am I missing?  When was any of this a secret?
  •  I do think that Hagel as SecDef (0+ / 0-)

    is a TERRIBLE choice. 84 lifetime rating from the ACU? Why, Joe Lieberman's lifetime rating is only 16!!!

  •  I'm sure you'll get plenty of agreement (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Cedwyn, howarddream

    from those who agree with you.

    "I have more than two prablems" - The Coach Z

    by AaronInSanDiego on Tue Dec 25, 2012 at 09:30:34 PM PST

  •  Im tired of this .. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    howarddream

    ...far left wing nonsense. Have we not seen what damage the GOP has been doing nationwide (WI, MI, VA, etc) since 2010? A Romney admin would have turbocharged such destruction.

  •  You Proved that Hate Doesn't Take a Day Off. (0+ / 0-)

    I miss Speaker Pelosi :^(

    by howarddream on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 09:01:47 PM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site