The democratic party is going down for the count

The democratic party has not won a a presidential election ,except under every exceptional circumstances, since 1964. Carter would not have been elected but for Watergate. Clinton would not have been elected were it not for Perot. Obama owes his election to an almost inconceivable set of circumstances that is not likely to be duplicated again anytime soon. Now the dems are managing to fuck up even that one opportunity. The republican House will ride Obamas ass for the next two years. The New York times will be repeating Fox news stories on Obama stealing office supplies. He will no doubt lose in 2012. You won't see another democratic president for 20 years. %0D %0D Face it. If the dems can't govern with large majorities in the house and senate with Jesus H. Kennedy sitting in the White House, who the hell is going to have even the slightest faith in the dems at any point in the future? Maybe if the republicans overreach by trying to enslave every citizen with a net worth of less than $1M. But they will probably hold off on that for at least a couple of election cycles.%0D %0D

"Clinton would not have been elected were it not for Perot."\ \ That is supposition.
The Republicans stole the elections they "won."
[italic]That is supposition.[/italic]\ \ Exactly.\ \ And Reagan was elected because of the failings of Jimmy Carter, and the fight between Carter vs. Kennedy, which destroyed the Party''s chances. Had Kennedy not pulled that stunt, Carter could have won. Reagan was seen as an unelectable joke. Carter vs. Kennedy split the Party.
True, R2.
The do-nothing Dems have proved that they are bought and paid for.
"Carter would not have been elected but for Watergate. Clinton would not have been elected were it not for Perot. Obama owes his election to an almost inconceivable set of circumstances that is not likely to be duplicated again anytime soon"%0D\ %0D\ %0D\ %0D\ %0D\ Bush would not have won if he hadn''t stole the election. Gore won the popular vote. More people voted for Gore than for Bush.%0D\ %0D\ %0D
Not to mention the faux outrage over Clinton''s penis. Many people fell for that bullshit, and voted for Bush.\ \ Bush was elected primarily because Clinton had an affair, and the Supreme Court handed the election to him.\ \ Most politicians are elected due to the failings of the other Party which has just been in control. Being in power for nearly a decade almost always produces a win for the other team. Power almost always corrupts, especially if you''ve been in control for nearly a decade. Nothing to see here!
Strange how the "do nothing Dems" have done far, far more in the last 2 years than any previous congress, and this in SPITE of the horrific GOP obstructionism and unprecident use of the filibuster.%0D\ %0D
Perot took more votes from Clinton than Bush.%0D
A friend of mine told me about some "expert" she heard on one of the political shows. His theory is that, if the Dems are defeated in the upcoming election, a viable third party will form within the next three years. \ \ I think that''s pie-in-the-sky dreaming. Another party won''t really take hold until we experience a major, way of life-altering event.
R8 Yea, they managed a BIG gift to the insurance companies.
Well, let''s face it. This election is a referendum on whether the American people still want a representational form of government, or whether they would rather take their chances going it alone. %0D\ %0D\ Governments primary goal is to facilitate commerce according to conservatives and the baggers.%0D\ %0D\ I think the polls bear out that the American people are ready to scrap the environment and make this country one big lot for industry. %0D\ %0D\ It''s been thirty solid years since we''ve had a liberal government. People believe that the New Deal and aspirations for the Great Society are a myth. %0D\ %0D\ Anyway, those ideals depended on an honorable society, something we jettisoned long ago. %0D\ %0D\ The baby boomers chose to rip us off instead of nurturing the fruits of their parents sacrifices.
Perot took more votes from Clinton than Bush, particularly in states like California, Idaho, Utah, and so on. The only states which might have flipped to Bush had Perot not run were Colorado and Maine, and maybe Tennessee and Georgia. But Virginia, North Carolina, Florida and maybe Texas probably would have flipped to Clinton, a native southerner who was running, more than cancelling out any moves to Bush among survivalist conservatives in rural areas.%0D\ %0D
Texas would NOT have gone for Clinton against Bush.%0D\ %0D
Probably not, R14, but with Clinton being from the South, Texas was better than usual for the Dems that year
Both parties are in the pocket of big business, the Republicans just deeper than the Democrats. Neither party puts the interest of ordinary people first. They''re too beholden to the corporate sugar daddies who pay for their campaigns.
Steal or win the outcome is still the same: The republicans are in and the dems are out. Whine and squeal about it all you like.
R17 displays a typical Republican''s sense of honor. "Lying, cheating, and stealing don''t matter for shit as long as you win."
Nixon would not have won if not for Vietnam. Reagan would not have won if not for the Iran hostage crisis and the economy. Etc etc etc.\ \ Your original post is meaningless post facto babble, OP. Sorry. The Democrats will have a bad election this year because the economy is still tanking (thanks largely to Bush, but people can''t vote against Bush anymore). It is to early to predict 2012 much less the rest of America''s electoral future.
If Democrats can''t win the presidency except under extraordinary circumstances, what were these in 1996?
Quit talking shit, OP. The fucking media and their polls will lead us to believe the repugs will win back the majority. It seems to be working so far and the stupid voters will vote in kind. In no small part because of your kind of bullshit. People, remember what they did to Howard Dean.
OP, I agree with you mostly - except for Clinton. He was elected twice and not just because of Perot. He understood it was "the economy, stupid."\ \ Unfortunately the party has not been able to replicate his success. I thought we had a shot with Obama but his campaigning skills haven''t been replicated in his governance. So far.
Carter didn''t have a chance in hell of winning re-election.%0D\ %0D\ Because of the Iran hostage situation, almost everyone saw him as weak, weak, WEAK.%0D\ %0D\ Then there was also the HUGE lines at all the gas stations and extremely high inflation.%0D\ %0D\ Kennedy or no Kennedy, Carter didn''t stand a chance.%0D
Even given Clinton in the 90''s, it seems the republicans have a lock on the White House for the most part over these recent decades.%0D\ %0D\ If Obama is in the 40''s in the polls right now, God help him over the next two years. The republicans are not going to let shit get through the House, except maybe a measure to repeal healthcare reform. And they will be crawling up his ass, looking for anything to keep slagging him with over every minute of every hour of every day until Nov 2012. He stands very little chance of serving a second term.%0D\ %0D\ Not to mention what might happen if someone decides to run to his left. I''m sure Ralph Nader would feel entirely justified in using the next year or two to piss in his corporate owned face, and cost him some votes on election night in key states. %0D\ %0D\ Single payer and card check. He should have invested every ounce of his being in those two items during his first months in office. Then maybe he would have had something to run on.
[quote] Unfortunately the party has not been able to replicate his success.\ \ Clinton''s success didn''t start until the third year of his presidency. Republicans took control of Congress in 1994, and Clinton''s approval ratings were in the toilet. But Clinton easily won re-election two years later. The current situation is very similar to the situation in 1994.
if the Republicans gain a couple of seats, it is not likely that it is going to be any less of a stalemate than the way it''s been lately with the constant threat of fillibuster, the need for a supermajority, and the recalcitrance of the Republicans in Congress whether they have slightly less than or slightly more than the Dems.\ \ next!
Obama is no Clinton. He just doesn''t seem to have that political knack.%0D\ %0D\ In fact, he''s developed quite the tin ear.
There''s some excellent observations and analysis of the 1980 divide in the Democractic Party in Walter Mondale''s new book.
Total political dweeb
Obama doesn''t have the personality. His humor isn''t charming, as Clinton''s is.%0D\ %0D\ JFK: Assassinated.%0D\ LBJ: One term.(RFK assassinated. Wallace shot.)%0D\ Carter: One term. %0D\ Clinton: Two terms, with NAFTA and DADT.%0D\ Gore: Stolen. Supreme Ct coup d''etat.%0D\ Kerry: Probably stolen.%0D\ %0D\ Democrats serve at the behest of the Ruling Powers.
OP. you are entitled to your opinions, but are NOT entitled to your facts. Moron.
There are multiple issues.\ \ The vast majority of the voting public is too ill-informed to make an intelligent decision at the poll.\ \ Campaigning has been taken over by marketing.\ \ No one can afford to run for office without the assistance of corporate sponsors (lobbyists).\ \ The news media controls what people actually know about issues and they themselves are dependent on corporate sponsorship.\ \ The Republicans have no qualms about lying or cheating.\ \ The Democrats are a diverse group; the Republicans are not.\ \ And most importantly, Democrats don''t bother to vote.
Even if the Republicans, and by Republicans I mean the Tea Party, make some gains this year the Dems will take back some seats in 2012.\ \ The important thing to watch is what''s happening in the South West. Once Texas and the rest of those states flip from red to blue, it''s over for the GOP. Demographics are destiny, and this will happen, probably not in 2012 but possibly in 2016. It''s not a question of if, it''s a question of when, count on it.
R31 is dead on.
R32, I agree. The problem though is Democrats don''t bother to vote. If the same percentage of Democrats voted as Republicans, the Republicans would have long been gone even now.
BREAKING NEWS!%0D\ %0D\ %0D\ 35,000 people attended Obama''s rally in Ohio tonight. 26,000 attended the rally the other week in Wisconsin.%0D\ %0D\ Yes, the democrats are really not enthused at all. Keep on believing that Republicans and corporate media!%0D\ %0D\ In early voting for the November elections in the states of Ohio and Iowa, Democrats by a 2 to 1 margin have cast their ballots already!
What is with all these ill-informed, revisionary takes on history that are attempting to keep selling the inevitability of Reactionary Republicanism as the country's future? It's like a campaign of right-wing spam going through sites like the DL. OP, you're either a troll or a fool. The political climate today is contaminated by an unprecedented poison fog of confusing, intentional double-speak, largely pushed by the Republicans as the only way they can wrest control of the government back. In 2000 they stole the election by sleight of hand and a political decision by Republicans on the Supreme Court. They attempted to destroy Clinton by personal attacks and pushing the most ridiculous accusations (against an admittedly flawed character, but for actions that were not criminal). And now they are fomenting absurd lies in order to subvert the legitimacy of the president. This is how they win, and this is also then how they lose. They cannot maintain power, and if they win in 2010 it will mean another Democrat sweep in 2012.
R34: "The problem though is Democrats don''t bother to vote."%0D\ %0D\ Does 2006 and 2008 not count?
[italic]They cannot maintain power, and if they win in 2010 it will mean another Democrat sweep in 2012.[/italic]\ \ I find people who predict winners and losers ahead of time, simply silly. We don''t know where the country will be in 2012.
R37, historically, that has been the case. \ \ 2008 was an unusual election, thanks to Obama.\ \ Nothing would make me happier than to see the Republicans trounced in this election, and have all the cable news pundits fumbling for explanations the day after.
Clinton was not a "success" with the economy. Though employment and wages rose, poverty did not decline (the government simple changed the reporting to pretend it did), and the middle class continued to lose ground because of a huge increase in employment instability.%0D
Democrats won the last five presidential elections. Two of them were stolen by fraud, and the source of the fraud has not been removed. So OP may be right but for the wrong reasons. Nevertheless, the country is moving to the left.
Blaming Kennedy for Carter''s loss in ''80 is cowardly and dishonest. %0D
I feel that just going on the change of demographics in this country that the GOP are going to be statisically finished within the next 20-30 years. The white, heterosexual male contingent is ever shrinking. Huge increases in the Hispanic population in border states like Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California will only cement Democratic gains in the future. \ \ The GOP have backed themselves into a corner that they can''t get out of. The Tea Party has emerged because wack-job conservatives are terribly afraid that the last 30 years of Neocon scheming will all be for naught.
"...but with Clinton being from the South, Texas was better than usual for the Dems that year."%0D\ %0D\ Let''s just pause a moment to really think about what this means to a country where we elect people to office. A bunch of people would have shifted their vote based on a man having a bit of a Southern accent. THAT would have been their deciding factor. And, it''s only gotten worse since then.%0D\ %0D\ For those of you holding out hope for a Democratic permanent majority due to demographic shifts in the population, be careful. The demographics that are shifting are shifting toward more latino Roman Catholics. Did you really not think there was a reason for the Dem party''s shift to the right? They don''t like abortions and they don''t like gays and, now, the Dem party is slowly shifting to adapt to that.
No, r44. Minorities are the bread and butter of the Democrats, much in the same way that fundies are for the GOP.\ \ Minorities will never switch over to the GOP in large numbers because they know the alternative is much worse. As much as ultra-religious Latinos and African Americans might oppose abortion and gay rights, they will not leave the Democrats.\ \ The GOP have shitted on the faces of the fundies for 40 years and have given them barely anything, policy wise. Yet here they are, still steadfastly in the GOP''s column.
R12 wins.
OP writes:%0D %0D [quote]The democratic party has not won a a presidential election, except under every exceptional circumstances, since 1964. Carter would not have been elected but for Watergate. Clinton would not have been elected were it not for Perot. Obama owes his election to an almost inconceivable set of circumstances that is not likely to be duplicated again anytime soon. %0D %0D You make allowances for reality as if that negates the legitimacy of the elections of 1976 Jimmy Carter and 1992/1996 Bill Clinton and 2008 Barack Obama. What an odd fool you are. But hilarious. And campy.%0D %0D %0D [quote]Now the dems are managing to fuck up even that one opportunity. The republican House will ride Obamas ass for the next two years.%0D %0D Doesn't matter. Obama will win landslide re-election in 2012. In this year's first congressional midterms, he's got a mix of 1954 Eisenhower, 1982 Reagan, and 1996 Clinton brewing.%0D %0D %0D [quote] The New York times will be repeating Fox news stories on Obama stealing office supplies. He will no doubt lose in 2012. You won't see another democratic president for 20 years. %0D %0D Realignement presidential election - which 2008 most certainly was - gave the Republicans the boot. Team Red will be out of the White House for 7 of the 9 or 7 of the 10 elections cycle that began with 2008. (Do research. Look up Elections 1860, 1896, 1932, and 1968.)%0D %0D %0D %0D %0D [quote]Face it. %0D %0D I have. And I like the fact that the Gay Old Party won't be winning back the presidency as early as 2012. They probably won't get there in 2016. And when Team Red wins back the presidency, they'll either have a one-termer - or the presidential-party successor will be a one-term commander in chief.%0D %0D %0D [quote] If the dems can't govern with large majorities in the house and senate with Jesus H. Kennedy sitting in the White House, who the hell is going to have even the slightest faith in the dems at any point in the future? %0D %0D They're governing. Like Diet Republicans. And Ted Kennedy died a year ago - you should look it up!%0D %0D %0D %0D %0D [quote]Maybe if the republicans overreach by trying to enslave every citizen with a net worth of less than $1M. %0D %0D Republicans will be 100% corporate cocksuckers. A continuation of where the party is already at. %0D %0D %0D %0D %0D %0D
Its the economy, immigration and I might add Obama''s good friend Billy Ayers. Look up the name Jeff Jones....one of the founding members of the weather underground.%0D\ %0D
http://www.zombietime.com/prairie_fire/
"Not to mention the faux outrage over Clinton''s penis. Many people fell for that bullshit, and voted for Bush."\ \ Bush over penis? Never thought I''d live to see this day on Datalounge.
"Your original post is meaningless post facto babble, OP."%0D\ %0D\ The only sentence worth a damn in this whole thread.
[italic]Doesn''t matter. Obama will win landslide re-election in 2012. In this year''s first congressional midterms, he''s got a mix of 1954 Eisenhower, 1982 Reagan, and 1996 Clinton brewing.[/italic]\ \ Yep, and Bush Jr. had no chance of winning the White House in 2000. Think again, buddy. Enough with the, "he''ll win by a landslide" bullshit. You don''t have a crystal ball.
R45, my point wasn''t the the minorities would start voting for Repugs but that, due to the fact that the increasing demographics within the Dem party are mostly latino Catholics, the Dem party has started, and will continue, shifting right.%0D\ %0D\ Ideally, in the future, the GOP will be extinct, the Dem party, with its new lightly conservative leanings, will be the less evil conservative party and the Green party will be an actual, viable progressive/liberal party. The evil idiots who vote Repug now can either go Libertarian or TeaBagger and be ignored.
OP=Disenchanted freeper troll concerned about the changing numbers.\ \ Bottom line, those Repug whores will not take the Senate and at this rate they may not even take the House. They peaked too early and the right wing-whoring media pushed their comeback too hard. Voters don''t like narratives nearly as much as the Beltway village does.\ \ Oh, and whether or not all his policies work Obama will win in a landslide in 2012. Have no doubt of that. There will never be a viable 3rd party in this country, at least not for 50 years. And in the meantime, the mediocre gains next month, the handy reelection in ''12 and on and on will leave the Republican base even more fragmented and insane than it is now. While it may appear they are rallying behind the Tea Party fringe right now, that is not sustainable. What was true 2 years ago is true now - their party is going into the wilderness for a long time.
[quote]ep, and Bush Jr. had no chance of winning the White House in 2000. Think again, buddy. Enough with the, "he''ll win by a landslide" bullshit. You don''t have a crystal ball.%0D\ %0D\ %0D\ %0D\ R51,%0D\ %0D\ Either challenge me or shut the fuck up, you useless bitch!%0D
R47
R53 - For all their "differences" making certain no third-party challenge can compete is what unifies Republicans and Democrats for the good of their common greed.%0D %0D Ross Perot getting 19% of the vote in 1992 was a mistake of the Thugs and Dims. So, they didn't make that mistake again - and made sure shot out Colorful Mr. P in 1996 and, of course, Ralph "Spoiler" Nader thereafter.%0D %0D Obama will win re-election landslide in 2012 because the asshole Thugs have no new ideas, no new ways, no real leadership in governance, no [italic]winner[/italic] among its cast of corporatists and freaks, and - realistically among those precious few -- no direction. %0D %0D [italic]Landslide[/italic] is loosely defined. Lots say 2-to-1 in the Electoral College and/or 55% of the vote. Obama already got the former in 2008, and he was a little more than 2% from achieving the latter. Both will be satisfied in 2012. %0D %0D I just hope Obama gets some leftwardness in home that helps unite the base - they've been used and abused in his efforts to win over Moderate Republicans who think the Thugs are no longer tolerable. He'll have to do this. There's no choice.
R47
[italic]Either challenge me or shut the fuck up, you useless bitch![/italic]\ \ Challenge you? You''re predicting a result that hasn''t even happened yet. You''re a nutter. Get some help.
[quote]Challenge you? You''re [bold][italic]predicting[/italic] a result[/bold] that hasn''t even happened yet. You''re a nutter. Get some help.%0D\ %0D\ %0D\ %0D\ R51/R56,%0D\ %0D\ %0D\ Look up the word [italic]predict[/italic].%0D\ %0D\ %0D\ (No need to report back.)
R47
[italic]Obama will win landslide re-election in 2012.[/italic]\ \ Re-read your own crap, moron.
[quote]Obama will win landslide re-election in 2012.%0D\ %0D\ [quote]Re-read your own crap, moron.%0D\ %0D\ %0D\ Fuck off, trash!%0D\ %0D
R47, you''re just plain fucking insane to be predicting a landslide reelection victory for Obama. Especially right now.\ \ I voted for Obama. I drank every drop of the kool-aid that he could serve up. I really thought we had a chance to see some "change that I could believe in".\ \ This bullshit pussyfooting around DADT? Hmm, doesn''t smell like change I believe in.\ \ The absolute bungling of coming out in defense of religious freedom vis a vis the NYC mosque issue? Pas de change.\ \ His claims of executive privilege and secrecy ABOVE THAT AND BEYOND the Bush Administration? No good change there.\ \ Those are just three issues. There are more.\ \ So, before pontificating about a supposed-forthcoming landslides because the Democrats do this and the Republicans fail to that, remember that before gaining votes elsewhere, President Obama has to keep the folks that voted for him the first time around... and right now, I''m not at all willing to throw my lot in with him based on the utterly craptastic job he''s done thus far.
Democrat with a fucking clue
r60, not your target but I'd like to invite you to join us in the world of adults. It's the land of the practical, the possible and the realistic within a modern bureaucracy and among a general public who were sorely led astray by Ronald Reagan and the Bush dynasty, and have to be carefully led at every turn towards anything remotely liberal. DADT - Will be repealed, but if it's not done properly, with every 'T' crossed and every obnoxious procedure - which sometimes includes allowing DOJ to challenge, which is a matter of bureaucracy - it can be overturned and fucked with in the future. I know we on the left do not like to deal with annoying practicalities like 'majorities' or 'details' or 'bureaucratic necessity,' but try to let emotionalism not win the day for once, hmm? Repealing means as much to me as it does to you, but anyone who's seen how Washington works knows there is only the art of the possible, not of the Frank Capra movie endings we all love. The mosque - He vigorously defended it and took a lot of shit from bigots over doing so. No fucking clue what you're talking about. Was he supposed to go bust some heads a la Chuck Norris? And finally, executive privilege - Yes, it's terrible that Bush did all that. Yes, a lot of it has still not been undone. But get a clue. Learn some history. Swallow a few sour truths. It's just like every other past power grab by any president, Dem or Repug - once the door is opened, it never fully shuts. Ever. And there will be good (and bad) men occupying the Oval Office who will continue to enjoy those powers, or at least the option of having them. Such is the tightrope of democracy.
Sorry, R61, I don''t buy your incrementalism-is-as-good-as-true-reform liberal-but-not-really psycho bullshit. Isn''t it pathetic that your argument, in essence, boils down to "yeah, what Obama is doing is sorta wrong, but at least we''re doing it less?" Are you really satisfied with that?\ \ Oh, yeah, by the way: fuck you and your condescension.
R60
[quote]No one can afford to run for office without the assistance of corporate sponsors (lobbyists).\ \ Ahem!
Sen. John Kerry
"Are you really satisfied with that?" Are you really satisfied with anything? How do you think we got civil rights legislation in this country? The New Deal? You think we waved a magic wand and it all came together instantly through sheer psychic force of will? It happened piece by piece, day by day, month by month, and yes, year by year. I'm young, probably younger than you, I just happen to have a sense of history. The problem with many of those of us on the left is we get so hooked on the cliche of "Speaking Truth To Power" and tiresome protest songs aging hippies have all heard a thousand times, or some great West Wing rerun or blah blah blah, and everyone gets all fired up with emotion and self-righteousness but none of that has the slightest fucking thing to do with actually Getting Shit Done. But hey - you Spoke Truth To Power. Again. Surely that'll get something done. Except no it won't. What gets shit done is working day by day, year by year, in boring and often frustrating ways that don't fit into a November sweeps episode on NBC. You say I'm wrong and I'm being condescending - okay. Then tell me EXACTLY, step by step, with precise calculation for the Blue Dogs, the Republican opposition, and the many branches of govt and bureaucracy involved, you would enact your reforms in a speedier fashion than this administration. I don't believe you can do it. You have the luxury of not having to. You exist in abstraction.
r61
R64, your entire post is an abstraction...and a surrender.
There''s no surrender to be found, r65. Simply practicality. How do you make sweeping change? The same way it''s always been done: Slowly, methodically, with persistence. You don''t do it the way it''s done in the movies. It''s not a protest song. It''s not a great YouTube moment. It''s done step by step, every. single. day. I''m sorry that feels like surrender to you, but you''re not offering anything better that actually gets anything done. Until you grow up and face the hard facts about how anything ever gets done in government, you''re going to be perpetually unhappy and unfulfilled. But then, a lot of us seem to prefer that to success. That''s why we lose to the Repug cocksuckers sometimes, because too many of us prefer to luxuriate in martyrdom to a cause we never bothered to plan for in terms of cold, hard logistics. Better to play "Everybody Knows" for the 99th time and get high when we fail (again). FUCK THAT.
This is the rightward wave. It will be another decade or so before the Dems get back to power.
Nice fantasy, r67, but not even close to reality.
How so r68?
all ears
OK, R66, explain to me this, then: Democrats have controlled Congress and the White House for almost 2 years. In that time, we have an administration that says that DADT is ending, and yet has appealed every court ruling calling it unconstitutional. TWO YEARS IN and we're still appealing it. The joint chiefs are on board. The votes are there in Congress (assuming the White House puts any lobbying effort together for the Senate, which they didn't). The DoD has said that they will adhere to the latest ruling, which prohibits DADT discharges. All of this, and I bet the sun still comes up for the military tomorrow morning. Explain to me exactly why the Bureaucracy hasn't woken up and joined what appears to be the rest of the entire freakin' government. More importantly, explain precisely why Obama (as the leader of the Executive, home of much of the bureaucracy) hasn't just set a directive to do away with DADT. I can understand methodical, patient, slow progress. I don't disagree with you entirely there... I just don't see any evidence of that at all here. I see foot-dragging political bullshit rather than standing up for what's right -- and now it's clearer than ever that the only one not standing up for it is the President. Everyone else is ready. Where is he? And, R64, I never said that I could enact the reforms any quicker than the administration could -- all I'm asking for is to not be sold a bill of goods. Yes, he got health care done (sort of), and yes his agenda was derailed from day 1 with the economy, but I think that most people expected more from him at this point in his term. Especially those who were so excited to have a change in leadership that we could get behind. Could it be done quicker? Maybe not... but if that's the case, then why raise expectations that high to begin with? All it does is make him look insincere, and make those of us who voted for him question whether we're willing to do the same again.
R60/R62
First: "Lobbying the Senate?" The Senate is full of kickback whores who do whatever the fuck they want and expect to sit around and just get reelected. Their terms are spread out and they cruise half the time. This is why we had such trouble passing health care - a number of right-leaning, bought and paid for Democrats in the Senate. We'd be having that problem with or without Obama. The Senate is a mess. "Lobbying them" is not a strategy. And yet, despite their bullshit they have been lobbied ad nauseum on varying issues, to varying results. Putting aside the bureaucratic nightmares and the lobbying from some persistent personnel to let it stand, DADT is also a headline unto itself, which is why it didn't go before HCR or the stimulus in the last year and a half - other front page issues which needed time and air. This is how policy works. What's more, I frankly can't blame the WH for not wanting to drop a gay soldiers repeal on a half-ignorant public right before a midterm election. There are dumb, casually bigoted people out there, especially swing voters. If you don't want to believe in Obama, that's your prerogative. But given the situation we're in with the govt and half-Stockholm Syndrome Democratic Congress we inherited, the changes we need to see enacted as a liberal base are not going to come easier or faster. The process can only continue to grind along, and it can only do that if we vote. Making an example of the wrong congressional Dems right now can wait for another day, especially if they have absolutely no viable liberal challenger whatsoever on the horizon. This is our world for the next 5-10 years at least: Slow progress. That's IF we get out of the hole we're in economically.
Other than health care reform, what specifically are the half-dozen or so other issues that were too pressing for DADT to proceed? You still don''t explain what those are. And what "bureaucratic nightmare" would stem from its repeal? Seems to me those wheels are already turning, and they''d be spinning faster if Obama would get the hell out of the way.\ \ As for being satisfied with slow reform, I''d be willing to go along with it if the Democratic, supposedly-liberal administration we elected looked and acted just a little bit less like the radical right-wing administration that we just survived. It doesn''t, and no matter how you thread that needle about the practicalities of this and the politics of that, I can''t get excited about voting again for someone who, at least personally, has really let me down thus far.
R60/R62/R70
The Repugs are playing the fiscal conservatives the exact same way they''ve been playing the social conservatives for the last forty years. That''s what the teabagging phenomenon is all about. And just as they used issues like abortion, flag burning, school prayer, etc. to get into office but never did a damn thing about them, they''ll use the deficit and government spending to lure them in and then proceed to run up the bills just as before.
>That''s what the teabagging phenomenon is all about\ \ No, the Tea Baggers are all about the billionaire backers shoveling money at them from the shadows. Once those funds go away this "grass roots movement" will shriveling up and die like my lawn in a drought.
The "tea party" is a fraud. They''re hypocritical and contradictory on key issues. Just consider how lighting-fast that [italic]movement[/italic] got established - and it just so happens the corporate media (which ain''t no fucking liberal media) - and a person with enough brains has to find it suspect. Any of the people here who actually find them legit have been punked, [italic]Suckers[/italic]!%0D\ %0D
[quote] Carter would not have been elected but for Watergate. %0D\ %0D\ [quote] Clinton would not have been elected were it not for Perot.%0D\ %0D\ BUSH WOULD NOT HAVE WON IF HE HADN''T STOLEN THE 2000 ELECTION, EINSTEIN.
"How do you make sweeping change? The same way it's always been done: Slowly, methodically, with persistence. You don't do it the way it's done in the movies. It's not a protest song. It's not a great YouTube moment. It's done step by step, every. single. day."%0D %0D The problem with your explanation is that Obama is slowly and methodically going BACKWARDS on this issue. He's behind everyone else, including the "half-ignorant public" as you call them, pulling on the rope to stop the progress. %0D %0D And, to all of you arguing that this has to be done right, by a Congressional repeal instead of a court win, you're full of shit. Once the law is deemed unconstitutional by a federal court, it's a little difficult for the Congress to maneuver around it. If this Congress repeals it, without it being found unconstitutional, it will be a hell of a lot easier for a future Congress to just put it back in place, at which time we start the whole court process over again. Congress can pass and repeal their own laws when they feel like it as long as they have the numbers, they cannot re-pass a law that has already been found unconstitutional without a lot more headaches.%0D %0D %0D %0D
.
Bush stole BOTH 2000 and 2004, you moron.%0D\ %0D\ Democrats have won the last FIVE presidential elections.%0D
R79, how''s Obama doing in your universe?
Better than that Bush, the Commander and Thief.
[italic]Bush stole BOTH 2000 and 2004, you moron.\ \ Democrats have won the last FIVE presidential elections.[/italic]\ \ 2000? Yes: Katherine Harris, and the Supreme Court. 2004? There you are just a conspiracy theorist who needs professional help. No sitting President loses a second term during wartime. That''s historical. The Right put fear into people in order to win. It''s that simple.
In 2004 Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell, a Republican, routed Ohio''s votes through the Republican National Committee''s computers in Tennessee to be counted. He allocated minimal numbers of voting machines to poor Democratic districts and lots of them to rich Republican districts. Democrats in some districts stood in line for 10 or more hours to vote. I voted in a Republican area and there were plenty of voting machines and the lines were very short.\ \ Blackwell performed all sorts of dirty tricks to steal votes for Bush. As an Ohioan I have no doubt at all that my state was stolen from Kerry.
R83, you''re confusing R82 with facts. Leave him in peace, he''s just busy misremembering.
Ohio was certainly not the only state stolen in 2004. New Mexico, Nevada, and Iowa were stolen as well, and probably others. Indeed, I believe the Bush totals were artifically increased by 10 million votes.%0D\ %0D\ %0D\ %0D
Ha!
funny
Thanks for bumping this up! Hilarious.
And ops theory was just disproved with the recent election. Try again!
LuciferTheLightBringer
Ha. Schadenfreude, darling schadenfreude.... Sung to the tune of "Danke Schoen"
Wayne%20N.
A few of these posters were remarkably prescient. The rest probably would like to forget this thread.