Intro: "Gay marriage, Israel, choice - talk is rife of a 2012 primary challenge to Obama from the left, but liberals' support, and fear of GOP extremism mean it won't happen."
President Obama talks about the ongoing budget negotiations in the briefing room of the White House. (photo: Pablo Martinez Monsivais/AP)
|
THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community. |
Comments
We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.
General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.
Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.
- The RSN Team
RUN BERNIE, RUN!!!
I see no problem, whatsoever, with a Primary Election opponent. And you can bet I'd work hard for a Bernie; a Kucinich, a Feingold, a Grayson, a..
You are so right that this guy is full of it. The comments here are just a small part of the proof that us "privates" are extremely disappointed with Obama.
I'd love to see Bernie run for Pres. on an Independent or Green Party ticket, but think the reality is that it would simply open the mass election fraud door for the Kochsucking Tea Party crowd. And, without a doubt, the last thing we enslaved sheeple need is more.....
Bushwhacking/Kochsucking/Oh Bomb Ah'ing.
Unfortunately, unless there is a third party (tbagger, indie) we can't gamble on primarying him out.
This is by far the most interesting election cycle I've witnessed, but we also need to make sure there is no voting machine hijinx.
The point to be taken from Alterman's dispiriting piece is that organizing, not elections, is the only thing that's going to pull this country out of the gutter.
A future vote for Obama from me is by no means guaranteed. Right now, the odds are about 2 in 5 at best. I am supremely disappointed in his performance thus far. And no, I wouldn't vote for any Republican. The real question is centered on whether I would vote at all. I do not like the idea of voting for the lesser of two evils In that case, one is still voting for "evil". Have we really sunk to the depths that do not permit a person of integrity to be a candidate? The answer, sadly, is quite apparent.
I hardly qualify as a macher. I'm a retiree on social security and I would heartily a support a challenger to Obama, who I feel betrayed his base. I'm not just kvetching. I'm furious.
Everybody here says "somebody" ought to oppose Obama, and maybe that's so . . . but get serious about it. Come up with a name - or names - of someone we can all support, otherwise get off of your asses and begin to support Obama! He ain't perfect, but for liberal/progres sive purposes he beats the socks off of any-and-every-b ody in sight.
I doubt Kennedy is interested. And Jerry Brown is too old.
I whole-heartedly agree with you, and we would have to work hard for this challenger (but that's what we DID FOR Obama in '08 anyway). And we would have to DEMAND that our candidate get equal access and fair treatment in the media. We could do that. We could go to the debates and take the doors off the joint. Many of us would end up in jail for the night; perhaps hundreds of dollars in fines, but.... We simply will not and can not allow the hostile takeover of our country any longer.
maddave: Progressives HAVE named names: Dennis Kucinich, Russ Feingold, Bernie Sanders, and Alan Grayson. Furthermore, we are not going to live in a democracy (Of, by, and For the People) until we get money OUT of the election process. Democrats, Progressives, campaigns, phone banks, need to STOP asking me for money to fight the Koch’s (I'm fully resigned that I can NOT win that fight!) We need to work to get money OUT of politics, not put more in. Just ask Russ.
I have old-time, liberal friends who are dead set upon withholding their support & vote from Obama, but they agree that long term liberal/progres sive progress will be radically curtailed - if nor snuffed out - if we remain on the short end of the current 5 - 4 split Supreme Court. Obama's two court appointments were stellar, but we MUST protect the seats that we have and, when either Kennedy or Scalia depart - or Thomas is impeached - we need to add one more - but neither is even conceivable under a Republican President. Consequently,re gardless of our disappointment over his appease-them-to -death approach to date, we have no choice but to stay the (Democratic) course with Obama.
Buy are you looking? Our guy looks like he may win this debt limit thing! Hope springs eternal.
We have entered a new era in the U.S., but most citizens have not recognized that yet.
Where is it written though--other than by Alterman here--that we must choose between Obama and Bachmann?
After all They occupied it for the better part of the last 40 years. The word occupied fits here, for they never did anything good while they were there.
They have done nothing but obstruting. WHATEVER Obama tried to do, even issues they were for, they abandoned, the minute Obama was for it. Our courts have huge backlogs because they have denied the judges, that needed confirmation in the senate. Nobody needing confirmation, have a chance. There has never been so much filibustering. They are hell-bent on destroying him. So realize what he is up against.
The repugs would have done this to any Democratic President. True, they are worse with Obama than they were with Clinton, but then again, they get worse all the time.
Obama has three choices: He can cower, he can fight, or he can collude with them. He's chosen to cower, or collude, depending on how you look at it. He's NEVER put up a fight for ANYTHING he was elected to do, NEVER.
So, I'd GLEEFULLY replace him with ANY other (non blue-dog) Democrat - ANYBODY. This excludes blue-dog Clinton. Anyone with a shred of conviction would FIGHT BACK.
If you remember, one of the things so many wanted him to do was: CHANGE THE TONE IN WASHINGTON????? ? He sure had to try. Also there are plenty of people, who, if he had been really tough, would have screamed that he was an ANGRY BLACK MAN. As the first black president, he is walking a fine line. Racism is certainly very alive in the country.
So many of the right hate him especially because he is black. It is too bad that more of our citizens refuse to acnowledge that.
Has constantly compromising made him "less black"? I agree about the racism. I don't agree that it would be made any worse if he actually fought back.
Obama must worry about his supporters not voting for him (or more likely, not voting at all in 2012).
Yesterday's new Washington Post/ABC News poll is more realistic:
"More than a third of Americans now believe that President Obama’s policies are hurting the economy, and confidence in his ability to create jobs is sharply eroding among his base. . . . The Post-ABC poll found that the number of liberal Democrats who strongly support Obama’s record on jobs plunged 22 points from 53 percent last year to 31 percent. The number of African Americans who believe the president's actions have helped the economy has dropped from 77 percent in October to just over half of those surveyed."
If Bernie will run - Obama might be out in the primaries. I don't know of any Dems lately that are singing great praise for the Prez.
It's all about Congress in 2012! Support your local Democratic candidates! Volunteer to get out the Democratic vote!
Everyone who holds this notion needs to look at the 2010 election. If Obama keeps peddling trickle down economics and banker-boy fiscal austerity, that last election is going to look like a dress rehearsal. I, for sure, will be writing Bernie Sanders name in for President, if the Democrats dare offer me 4 more years of their poverty-making creepy neoliberalism.
What's the difference between Democratic and Republican economic policy? Republicans want to make us all slaves and the Democrats want us to feel good about the experience.
Right now, I'd challenge Obama's team to tell me why a vote for them would be any different to a vote for romney, pawlenty, or huntsman. I can't tell the four of them apart. If one of those repugs end up the candidate against Obama, I expect a lot of hugging and telling each other what nice guys they are.
In many ways our country is in a fight for its survival, and elected office-holders who pretend that isn't the case, while the right-wing holds us hostage, isn't going to "change" that fact.
I'd vote for ANY liberal challenger. Dean would be my favorite.
The Republicans who are fighting fiercely to cut Social Security and Medicare would not even be news because their proposals would be certain to lose if you and all those others who didn't vote in 2010 had helped us keep them out of the majority.
If you don't think there would be any difference between Romney, Pawlenty, Huntsman and Obama, I have 2 words for you: Supreme Court. Think about it and honestly ask yourself: which one you'd rather had picked the last two Justices and which one you'd rather have pick the next?
Many people on the left are deluded into thinking that the voters of America are more liberal/progres sive/leftist than they really are. If Howard Dean, Bernie Sanders, Dennis Kucinich, or Cynthia McKinney were somehow able to become the opponent against the Republican candidate, Those people would be shocked out of their delusion.
The repuglicans trying to end Social Security, have been trying to do the same thing since 1934. The only thing that's changed is that they're facing a President who's willing to play ball as long as he can make a compromise.
Many people on the left are the reason Obama was elected. The despised base are the ones who elected him. The middle, as usual, stayed home. The country you think isn't that far to the left, wanted single-payer. In fact, 71% of them did. Obama could have had it, if that's what he wanted. The 71% who wanted it were a clear majority and would have supported him. Who knows, they might have even voted in 2010.
The repugs won big in 2010, because the repugs know who votes: THEIR BASE. The Democrats lost big in 2010 because they were to busy trying to please the REPUGLICAN BASE.
The fact that the President isn't listening to the people who elected him isn't our fault.
This would be a great time for a 3rd party to make a surge. I'd vote 3rd party just for a chance to vote against Obama. All it would take would be about 35% of the popular vote to win. This is the time for the 3rd parties out there -- Greens, libertarians, and others -- to work together and make a push.
Libertarians don't even believe Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the EPA, unions, planned parenthood, national parks, public schools, public libraries, consumer protection standards, the FCC, the USDA, etc. should EVEN EXIST. That would not be an improvement.
DAMN A DEM. (OH BOMB AH) but VOTE FOR THEM. Sorry, no more. And this is my stand (with a Dem. Pres., Andrew Jackson, hangin' in the family tree). There are huge numbers of folks out there just like me, sick of chosing the Dem. as the lesser of two evils.
Can't trust polling (too often karlroved these days, like voting itself, so often defrauded in order to get the Kochsuckers into office).
American Revolution II, it's a comin'.
What Americans don't realize is that we are ALREADY in a revolution, and We The People are clearly losing. Our highly prized "Democratic Way of Life" is fast disappearing, and the federal courts and Congress no longer respond to the needs of We The People. A shadow government composed of Corporate America, Big Oil, Big Health Care and our hereditary, moneyed aristocracy comprises the burgeoning plutocracy by which we are now governed.
Corporate oligarchs have two budgets. One - the capital budget - buys and meticulously maintains heavy, valuable (production) equipment. The other - the consumable budget - is for procurement of easily replaceable, expendable, use-and-throw-a way items. I submit that, with the demise of Union Power, We The (common) People who (under the unions) gained recognition as valuable, productive cogs in the American economy are rapidly being relegated to industrial and legislative dustbins throughout America - like worn out & discarded (cheap) spare parts, wiping rags, mops and bathroom tissue.
I further submit that, historically, revolutions come & go peaceably. It's in the counter revolution - when hungry & fed-up people try to regain their power - that things get messy.
Families homeless. I wonder if you saw the 60 minute program with all the children who were homeless, with their families?
When people loose hope terrible things happen
In fact, there's no point in voting any longer. The two party system is dead.
Also, Obama is a conservative who pretended to be liberal to get elected. Clinton doesn't bother pretending. She's an all out conservative.
You're probably right about Wall-Street, though. They want market stability. He can provide that better than a lunatic on the right. Wall-Street is probably "his base".
From where? That doesn't sound like it is true. I will believe it when I see some independent documentation.
As for Obama's approval rating from liberals, I think it is very, very low. It is only when Obama is compared to a hard right republican that he scores positive.
But as I said, it is what I think. That is the reason I wrote "I think". If it had been more, I would have cited something as I did when I posted about voting.
Peace
The Democratic narrative is that he's being attacked by the far right, and no one else dislikes him. The repugnant narrative is that, he is such a left-wing socialist that everyone, BUT the far-left wants him out. Both narratives are self-serving lies, that prevent such a poll from being conducted.
Anyway, it would be a poll of "what people think". That what this is about. I personally, don't know any liberals who are happy with his performance in office. All of them WILL vote for him anyway, IF they don't get a better choice. That doesn't mean we don't DESERVE a better choice.
It's ironic that Nader finally decided not to run. This would be the first time I would have voted for him. I'd still prefer a Democrat to challenge Obama from the left.
DEAN / FEINGOLD for PRESIDENT!
I think the candidates for the next election will be:
ROCK VS. HARD PLACE.
or maybe:
FRYING PAN vs. FIRE.
And, sadly, I think you are correct.
They're better actors.
Hopefully (and i know at this point it's still perhaps more wishful thinking) progressives will begin to learn the lessons of American History (not to mention Tahir Square) that the only time we have gotten substantive, meaningful change (even of the reformist kind) is when there is a mass movement out there that really challenges and ultimately threatens the system as a whole....Roosev elt is a case in point....he didn't campaign as a liberal reformer but came to understand that reform was necessary to save the system from those pushing for more radical changes.
Finally, though, i think Alterman misses the point of a progressive challenge in the primaries...the point is to change the terms of the debate and the conversation... e.g., there is no deficit crisis in this country there is a revenue crisis which if dealt with could mean no cuts at all....if the market isn't hiring create a giant new WPA project....if we can't employ everyone nowadays because they aren't needed given the productivity of the new technology cut the $#%*ing work week...we never should have given up after getting the 5 day 40 hour work week anyway.
But, could you point out the difference between "liberal" and "progressive"?
I've asked this before and got thumbs down, but no response. Maybe it's just me, but it sounds suspiciously like conservatives made "liberal" a bad word, so, rather than fight, liberals opted to change the word to "progressive".
I'm a liberal. I'm proud of it, and I don't think liberals approve of Obama's job performance.
I just wanted to repeat that. That was a great quote.
Opportunity and opportunISM are NOT the same thing.
Lastly, It will not matter how MANY Ballots are cast in the PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION. What Matters IS...WHO WILL BE COUNTING THE BALLOTS!
Americans will never forget the State of Florida in the Presidential election of George Bush who LOST thru ballot counting, but by a Supreme Court decision WON in the State of Florida.
Enought Said?
And Sanders should enter the race as an Independent so that a reasonable viewpoint can continue to be made after the primaries. Let's do what we can to make it happen!
Obama will veer wherever the wind is blowing. And I don't mean public opinion, I mean the wind from the mass media blowhards stuck in their myopic world guided by far-right talking points. Alternate, truly liberal candidates will help stabilize Obama so he doesn't lean so far right that he topples. I don't want the next election to be an endless, meaningless debate between stupid and insane. We need at least one true liberal with unshakable principles such as a respect for life, and who will refuse to compromise with wrong.
Do you think Obama is better than romney, for instance? Again, I'm not disagreeing with you. I'd like you to help me tell the difference.
Two months ago, I would have said romney is worse because he's a "moderate repugnican" candidate, and we all know what that means. George II was a "moderate" candidate as well. Like all "moderate" repugnicans, he's a trojan horse who won't disagree with the extreme right, once in office.
Then again, Obama was a "moderate to liberal" candidate. Has he shown any substantive way in which he is willing to FIGHT (not just talk tough) against the extreme right? Right now, I'm thinking romney is an extreme right-winger pretending to be moderate, and Obama is an extreme right-winger pretending to be liberal. To me, the result is the same.
If bachmann, or paul gets the repug nomination, you can COUNT ON ME TO VOTE FOR OBAMA, though.
I'm willing to be wrong about this. I hope I am.
He would appoint a liberal or a centrist Justice to the Supreme Court as he has twice before rather than the right wing ideologues Republicans are fond of appointing.
He will sign the "Dream Act." Republicans won't.
He will sign the bill repealing DOMA. Republicans won't.
He ended DADT. Republicans will try to reverse it.
He will continue to wind down US involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan. Republicans will increase it.
He has and will continue to sign nuclear disarmament treaties. Republicans are against that.
The repug bills in Congress won't end Medicare OR Social Security. They'll drastically CUT them. Obama seems pretty willing to make that compromise. Are you?
Also considering, that too many jobs are low wage, and with all the cuts being made to education, we are unfortunately not seeing a lot of geniuses taking over???
Changes CERTAINLY WILL be made. For that reason I think it is really important that we discuss, WHAT those changes should be before the repubs start in on S S with a BIG AXE.
It is important to be PROACTIVE, not reactive.
I am almost 78, so I COULD say, what the hell do I care?? That was not lady like,
LIVE with it. Well I care for I think of my children and yours and the country I love in spite of all the crap happening right now. I have all my marbels and THEN some, so I try to make a difference for good, where I can.
I think, well to do people should pay more, so cuts will not be made to people, who relies on S S alone. S S should not be cut. OK was that clear enough??? And I NEVER thought it was.
about me.
Unfortunately a lot of people do not understand, that S S has nothing to do with the current economic problems, because the republicans WANTS them to believe it has.
I sure hope this cleared it up??
Unfortunately vay too many do not understand what they are doing. They don't see, that the republicans don't want to win.
THEY WANT TO KILL THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY.
He is downgrading US involvement in UN operations in Libya. Republicans believe the US should lead the project with troops on the ground.
He allows US aid to countries and NGOs regardless if they provide abortions. Republicans would reverse that.
He raised fuel economy standards to 54.5mpg by 2025. Republicans would allow less than 45mpg.
He signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act against wage discrimination for women. Republicans were against it.
He lifted the ban against stem cell research. Republicans would reinstate it.
Is there really no difference?
Our citizens don't understand that we will greatly benefit when ALL private and corporate money is gone from elections, and the policians are answerable TO US. We could throw them out, if they are not doing a good job.
That is difficult now because thy have their paymasters to keep them in office, because they are serving THEM.
"OK. I have tried my utmost to work with people, who obviously do NOT want to work with me, so it will not be the highway. IT WILL BE MY WAY!!"
I think you would hear such a scream of approval, that you would be half deaf.
Their aim is ALWAYS to devide and conquor, and they usually win because democrats don't know that you need to STAY TOGETHER in order to win. You may have problems and you may have setbacks, but you need to keep your eye on "the prize".
Republicans are great at campaigning. They STAY FOCUSED....they win, and then we are all in deep do do for they can not govern, and they don't care. all they want is to enrich the people paying them
billy bob do you think Romney would be better??? He doesn't even have the courage to stand and defend the one good thing he did as governor. He is the ultimate flip flopper. He has changed position so many times he must be dizzy.
In business he did not CREATE JOBS HE KILLED JOBS.
I wanted Obama LONG BEFORE any of the other Democratic candidates dropped off in the 2008 primaries. He's the FIRST Democratic nominee that is exactly who I would have picked out of the entire field that was running - EVER. I was so proud that the person I thought was best for the job, ACTUALLY GOT THE NOMINATION FOR A CHANGE. I certainly didn't want Clinton until he was the nominee anyway.
Then Obama took office and I've felt like a dupe ever since. If I had a time machine I wouldn't just laugh Kucinich off the stage. He's so small you could fit him in your pocket and he doesn't look or act like a fighter, but he has more fight in him than Obama will ever have. If he, or Feingold, or Dean, or even unknowns like Carl Levin and Barbara Lee ran against Obama in the next primary, I'd fight tooth and nail to get them the nomination. ANY of them would win over the teapublican candidate.
Many good laws have been passed. Look it up. And I think Obama wants to do more in a second term, when he doesn't
have to worry about re-electiom.
As Fareed said, he is patient calm and PRAGMATIC.
Also the people who do not realize that changes NEED to be made to Social Security. and Medicare, are not paying attention. I know Social Security is solvent now; but with all the baby boomers getting old and needing it, and living MUCH longer than before, we HAVE to make changes. We need to talk about WHICH CHANGES.
To learn something and understand, look up Ronald Brownstein's informative article: Going gray, plus a lot of red.
I'd also be willing to accept getting rid of the cap on how much income you pay Social Security on. Currently, Social Security doesn't affect the paychecks of the rich much. I'd be glad to see that change.
Candidate Obama said he wanted to close Guantanamo. He could have. Candidate Obama said he believed in single-payer. He could have had it. Candidate Obama said he wanted to get out of Iraq. He could have.
A repuglican Congress couldn't have stopped ANY of those things, without suffering electoral consequences that would have furthered OBAMA'S agenda. What's worse is that he didn't even HAVE a repugnant Congress when he took office. He had a FILIBUSTER-PROO F MAJORITY. He squandered it.
That was NOT "pragmatic". It was counter-productive.
Believe it or not, people just SAY they want cooperation and bipartisanship in Washington. THEY DON'T. They want PASION and RESULTS. If they got those things, Obama's approval rating would be back where it was when he took office and he'd be able to get more of the liberal agenda he's avoided pushed through Congress. THAT would have been the "pragmatic" approach.
And you are wrong...sorry for being so blunt...He could NOT close Guantanamo. When he said it was going to happen, The republicans IMMEDIATELY said NO you can not bring them to ANY prison on mainland USA. They cut the funds. He didn't have a chance. please look it up billy bob. He definitely DID TRY.
I agree that the fact he couldn't get HIS OWN party's "blue-dog" repugnicans to cooperate with him is a big part of the problem. He has the bully pulpit for a reason. repugnants know how to force the hand of their own rank and file. For Obama, that would be too confrontational.
I'm not "projecting" that Obama said he wanted single payer. He SAID IT, in no uncertain terms. He didn't even TRY IT, once the opportunity came.
I'm not "projecting" that candidate Obama said we'd be out of Iraq. He SAID IT, in no uncertain terms. The regnant minority of Congress, or even the current majority, couldn't stop him if they tried. What could they do? Cut off funding for NOT FUNDING a "war" we're not in anymore? It's his decision to get out. Not theirs. HE'S THE COMMANDER AND CHIEF.
The problem is that he doesn't WANT TO, and the only conclusion I can draw about the fact that he said HE WOULD do those things when he was a candidate is that he was lying.
By the way, is it REALLY possible that such a brilliant man "didn't know" repugnants would fight him about everything? When we're told how brilliant he is, I tend to believe it.
You make him out to be an idiot.
I don't see how any progressive could cast a vote for such a cowardly, clearly pro-corporate rat. I think the Left must do anything and everything to see to it that Obama does not get a second term.
and I won't engage in the self defeating political chess game of voting for Obama because the Republicans are worse.
If there is no third party, I won't vote at all
Then when Obama continues on his anti-environmen t, pro-war, anti-civil rights, pro-business agenda I won't feel like s..t for having voted for him.
As a Canadian observer and part of the minority radical left portion of Canadian voters, I am extremely interested in this conversation.
I too think that Obama needs to be challenged so that left wing, socialist (meaning actually caring about the social fabric of the country) views become part of the debates.
However, if it's Obama or ANY Republican, don't abandon the field to the GOP!
One never knows how a second term Obama might strengthen!
The problem is, that we were labelled "the professional left" and told that everything we wanted (e.g. an end to torture, single-payer, an end to Iraq, to keep our Social Security, etc.) were "off the table" and "dead on arrival" for a "lack of support". The support that got him elected, wasn't enough support to get him to actually act on his campaign promises.
A 71% approval for single-payer is a pretty strong endorsement. The trouble is that, the President we elected, decided to side with the other 29%, against us.
mccain said he didn't care if we left troops in the Middle-East for the next 1,000 years. It was one of the most damning quotes that lost him the election. Obama didn't say that. It seems like he was thinking it all along, though.
The first time I REALLY started to take Obama seriously, was during one of the Democratic debates when he was, from what I could tell, the ONLY one to speak up and say that the U.S. is not a country that should be engaged in torture, and that if elected, he would make it one of his first priorities to close the torture camps.
I'm still waiting for that to happen.
Like Clinton the left is lulled while the republican agenda is expanded. Yes beat then to the punch. Knock ourselves down first.
The discussion is really over. So is the election according to Alterman (other man)).
The Dems need the other Person. or for sure it is time for a 3rd Party.
For sure the time is now.
However, I could be completely wrong here, about "liberal" support for Obama. The Sheeple appear to have been so dumbed down and fearful of, well, just about everything, that they may just "goose step" right into the voting booth and, once again, vote against their own interests.
Democrats saw that and made ALL OF THE WRONG conclusions about it. Instead of the country becoming further right-wing. The voters of one party were given someone they actually wanted.
Instead of moving further to the right to try and decieve voters about who the REAL conservatives were, the Democratic Party should have offered a CHOICE. Instead of running away from the word "liberal" and every other word that Newt Gingrich decided to attack, the Democratic Party should have embraced their own ideals and shouted BACK, at the so-called "silent majority" that can never seem to shut up, even when it's a minority.
Reagan may have been the 2nd worst president in U.S. history and an incredible liar to the press, but he gave his base EXACTLY what they voted for, and they made sure to keep voting.
Reagan encouraged right-wing lunatics to become excited. Obama (like Clinton before him) has encouraged left-wing apathy, but those first few days he was in office were pretty thrilling.
I say that he is being as strategic as he can given the congress that we all elected.
The problem is some - I say to many - middle income class voters are politically leaning to supporting the "above 250-k$" class - for some - maybe misguided - reason. What's your reason?
In this "below 250-k$" class we want to hold onto the "liberal" benefits of all of the past human history but side with the "above 250-k$" on the next liberalization issues.
Fool me once shame on you. Fool me twice shame on me. Just count me a no show come election in 2012 unless some one else who can keep their word shows up to represent me both in the Congress and the Executive Banches. I am tired of hearing promises of help and then watching the support flow to the wealthy.
Three years without a COLA in social security while prices continue to rise in staples and other goods. Result in three years of net loss to the elderly.
Taxes remain frozen for the wealthy for eleven years. The wealthy have also not had a return to their prior tax base in eleven years. Result, eleven years of net gain to the wealthy.
This is simply wrong and any idiot can see it. Who is being crushed here Mr. Democrat? Mr. and Mrs. middle income. Your so called political base. Your middle income base ends up supporting the political base of the Republican Party. How out of kilter is that Mr. Democrat?
You deserted us pure and simple. We don't show come election time. End of discussion. Its called Tit for Tat.
It seem that once the votes were counted Obama's administrators and advisor turn to the corporatists once more. The fact that his spoke person, Gibbs, infuriated the progressives of the Democratic Party denouncing our agendas and by which he lost his position only means that I might not vote for Obama if someone like Bernie, Kucinich or Grayson runs! We need people with guts who will tell the Republicans and the right wing conservative and the entire GOP what they really are, traitors to our democracy!
The facts are, most of us worked hard, I am a country precinct chairman and worked my butt off to have him elected because the nation needed hope and he than fit the bill, so he said. But now I feel he is just nothing but an opportunist and play games with our votes.
Unless no one runs against him in the Democratic Party, I might have to vote for him again, but I will do so relunctly and because I hate Bachmann, Rick Perry, and anyone else that decides to run in the Republican Party.
Not only to Mr. Obama himself, but it might well also serve to remind the leadership of and the office holders in the Democratic Party that the party has reneged on the contract with its members to be the more or less LIBERAL party. We do not expect the Democratic Party to be a truly progressive party, but we are disgusted and angry that the party has become the far right arm of the even more far right Republican Party.
FDR told his supporters "now make me do it". We must make Obama act on the principles he told us were his during his campaign for president. Every president faces many many pressures. It could well be useful if one of those pressures were pressure from his supporters to actually do what they elected him to do.
RSS feed for comments to this post