Even the Kos ventured only a little tiny criticism — and immediately defended himself, like a child anticipating a scolding, from his liberal parents. And he assured the readers that he will vote for Obama anyway.
This is very definitive, unequivocal campaign promise. Why is he not out there with the Wisconsin protesters? And in Indiana? And in Ohio?
And what happened to the White House Middle Class Task Force, chaired by Vice President Biden.
I know some Kossacks will accuse me of Obama bashing. But Obama spoke very strongly about standing up for bargaining rights and for the middle class. I have every right to question why he’s not out there in those comfortable shoes.
Yes, I will vote for him again. But really. Don’t build up my hopes if you’re not going to follow through.
Why should any politician keep his promises to us if we guarantee him reelection when he betrays us on even the most fundamental principles?
Why aren’t we looking for either a better candidate or a better/new party, so we can get what these phonies promised?
Why can’t we even bring it up? Or bring it up, but cringing and apologizing?
This is incredible.
And you posters who like to distract the discussion with your forays into endless side arguments grinding through minor/irrelevant details or pretending you don’t understand the implications of the message (you know who you are), please hold it just this once, so we can address the central issue here:
What are liberals/progressives/lefties/BMG’rs going to do about the failure of the Democratic party as a countervailing force against the neo-con scheme to replace democratic government with a pluto-corporate oligarchy ruling a nation of serfs?
I was unaware of Obama’s 2007 quote before reading Shirley’s post. It’s a good post, so I added the video and front-paged it.
Watch mainly for attacks on your snarky comments and BMGers (who even respond) to go after your window dressing.
<
p>They will give him a pass much like he is getting on closing Gitmo… remember that one?
<
p>
<
p>I’ll repeat something I wrote yesterday that it is a little refreshing to see some elected officials who actually do follow through with their campaign promises and commitments. Obviously some politicians cannot make everything happen however they should at least try. Obama cannot make most things happen, he has to fight the fight, convince others, get a vote… I admire Wisconsin Republicans for following through on their campaign promises to the 5 and half million Wisconsin residents who put them squarely in charge in November.
Good Lord, John, do you read any of the front-page posts around here? Or do you just like to blather on about what you wish were true? (Here is just one example; there are many, many more.)
Yes, Obama has gotten a pass. But maybe I can describe what a “pass” is in my book. When a public figure gets accused of doing or not doing something and life goes on like it never happened, that’s a pass. Now, you might say that the press mentioned it and/or the figure’s supporters criticized it… but did anything come out of it? If Boehner does something wrong and his supporters stand up and say “John, that was wrong!… now let’s move on…” then I would call that “getting a pass”.
<
p>When was the last time you heard anyone commenting on Obama’s broken promise of Gitmo? Your link was from June 2009! He has gotten a pass and his voters/supports have dropped the issue.
<
p>Try to be more reality based on this treatment, “bloody” Cap’s treatment by BMGers… and less about my blathering.
<
p>Here’s one for you, JD. It’s from last November. I can certainly see how you might have missed it, since ….Oh, wait – you didn’t.
<
p>Do you even care whether what you write has some basis in reality?
who were as edacious as that? Maybe someone (other than me) will bring Gitmo up in another 6 or 12 months… your peeps are so relentless.
You asked “when was the last time” with a sneer at David’s reply to your previous comment as being too old. I gave you a much more recent FPP, with a heading that it’s probably not the last time, and I am sure it’s not. You imply that it definitely is, but are too lazy to actually confirm that.
<
p>This is one of the reasons that trying to debate with you is a waste of effort – you don’t make any effort to verify that what you’re saying has a basis in fact, but we’re supposed to take all your straw men and false assertions seriously and reply to them as though they were real.
<
p>I am giving up that game once again. Have fun with your taunts and foolishness.
I don’t want to waste your time and I mean it. Some people cannot see the other side’s arguments and we may be good examples of that. So why bother? There are many posters here who write very interesting remarks, some of which I actually agree with. So with all these choices to read, skip my posts and read the ones you agree with. Problem solved.
Yeah, the first link I could find in 5 seconds was from June 2009. Here’s one from April 2010, which took 5 more seconds. There are plenty more, but I think I’ll stop doing your work for you now.
<
p>As for Cap, I criticized his comment, urged that he apologize for it, and congratulated him when he did. If you’d care to explain what else I should have done, I’m all ears.
I did note that you personally took him to task AND that you were taking other BMGers to task who were defending his use of vitriol and inciting violent language. My remarks were about the “other” BMGers who were taking an “about face” from their Tuscon inspired calls for civility and less “violent” language. They are the hypocrites, not ye!
<
p>As for the pass, I’ll drop it since you’re all missing my point. Jumping up and down about something and then dropping it… IS A PASS! Unless the person reverses what they did (Gov Patrick hiring Marian Walsh) or the people keep reminding him (George Bush – “…read my lips!”) then I consider the person got a pass. Republicans give passes to other Republicans too. We can disagree on this, it’s ok.
To the best of my knowledge.
<
p>He only introduced this idea after he got elected and decided, as one might say, to “go rogue.”
<
p>Do you have anything to support your claim that the WI Republicans are following the will of the people in their efforts to abolish collective bargaining for state employees?
I keep hearing that “he ran on this.”
However, I think politicians run on “themes”, you know, “hope and change” which they translate into specific things “Closing Gitmo, Punishing Wall St…” and broad things like controlling government spending, reducing the size of government… The Tea Party movement which catapulted not just Republicans into a majority of the US House, but also into majorities in State Houses around the country shared those same common themes… controlling spending, ending abusive pensions, disability fraud, absurdly wasteful spending… I guess I’m playing a little lose and aligning myself with BMGers who believe when we elect our leaders (politicians?), we elect them to make the right choices and if they don’t, we boot them out of office in 2, 4 or 6 years. I also believe we have to understand that 50,000 or 100,000 or even 200,000 protestors do not represent the majority of Wisconsin residents. They do however represent JUST the unions.
<
p>But to your question, the answer is no.
<
p>Just a reminder of how the people of Wisconsin voted in 2010. Obviously Madison, where the protests are occurring has a stronger BLUE following than the much larger RED following throughout the state. But Madison’s 2010 Election results showed Feingold getting 154K votes while Johnson only got 66K votes, but Johnson won statewide. Madison voters AND protestors do not represent Wisconsin as a whole.
<
p>
That map is great. It makes it look like Wisconsin is a 80-20 red state to help your point. It’s not. Walker won 52%, so claiming that he had a strong mandate to push these kinds of “reforms” is utter bs.
You may want to check some recent Democratic wins before answering. BUt seriously, when can a victor declare he/she has a mandate? 2%, 4%, 10%????
Well, Obama won by about the same margin as Walker. I don’t remember anyone treating him as if he had a mandate when it came to debating health care reform. And, though, I haven’t done an exhaustive comparison, it seems Mr. Obama was a bit more specific in describing his plans for health car reform than Walker was on his plans to take on public workers.
<
p>Claims may have been made about mandates (then and now) but that shouldn’t slow anyone down in opposing plans by those claiming a mandate.
<
p>And while protesters don’t replace voters, they sure do show a bit more commitment and concern about an issue, don’t they?
Isn’t the argument that taxpayers are sick of giving up their money for people who make more than them?
<
p>And don’t we universally accept that businesses lobby for tax breaks to make them more profitable?
<
p>It’s not ok to protect one’s own self-inerest if you’re an individual on the street, but it’s ok if you’re writing a check to a lobbyist?
<
p>If they were so concerned about others, you’d call them communists.
just don’t ask me to be impressed by their “commitment and concern” since they are committed and concerned about themselves.
… and it is us.
<
p>
<
p>I do. I watched it all go down. I felt the euphoria and the rising sense of ascendant liberalism. Then it all went away and awry. Why? ‘Cause Obama got curb-stomped on Gitmo by some of his very closest allies in the Democratically controlled Senate. Yeah, I said it… Democrats, spineless and mealymouthed, supporting Obama in public and stabbing him repeatedly in the back in private. Then the endless dickering over healthcare and the all-to-evident rift between Obama and the Senate, a rift born of the betrayal on Gitmo. Obama no longer trusts those #$!@! Democrats in the Senate, and so he’s playing the game like a man who knows nobody’s got his back save his immediate staff.
<
p>But that’s only the half of it… and the good half as well, after all Obama is a grownup and he asked for the job… No, the bad half are the rage-a-holics like Shirley here, Hamsher of firedoglake, Bowers of openleft and the rabidities on Kos, as well as the mainstreamers who launch themselves with french poodle fury at the merest whiff of a hint of insufficient fealty to leftist dogma. “gettting a pass”?? WTF? Who’s giving him a pass? Nobody. People are falling all over themselves to set the new record for the 50-yard rage. The distance between support and sputtering denunciation is infinitesmal. We don’t even need the GOP, leftists are making shit up to get their rage on against Obama… (Deval too…)
<
p>In two years, Obama got more done than eight years of Clinton, and that’s WITH opposition from within his own party. Instead of saying ‘good job’, we’re having THIS conversation. And you say he’s ‘getting a pass…’
<
p>Go figure…
<
p> If the Republicans “11th commandment” is “thou shalt not speak ill of a fellow Republican” then the leftist conjugate to that is “Thou shalt not speak well of a fellow Democrat…” Repeated refrains of “why doesn’t he do what I want!?!?!” are heard. Well so what about what you want? If you’re going to turn on him for perceptions of betrayal then forget you. If your support wavers like overcooked spaghetti in a windstorm, then what is your support, and your opinion worth? Why should you expect more from him than that which you’re willing to give.
<
p>
<
p>I’m waiting for you to recognize that the perfect is not the enemy of the good. Maybe you once thought Obama was the second coming and he’s disappointed you. I could have told you that would happen (and probably did…) But punishing him for not being Jesus is your issue, not his.
before the debates even started.
Who twisted his arm to make a full frontal assault on federal whistleblowers (after he said in the campaign that he would protect them)?
And at the same time turn a blind eye to all of the illegal activities of the Bush years?
Who made him expand the failed war in Afghanistan and the use of civilian-killing drones in Pakistan?
How about the extra-judicial assassination orders of an American citizen living in Yemen?
How about the advising of Bank of America to hire a cyber hit man to destroy the reputation of US journalists?
Who made him hire his team of economic advisers, whose philosophy is responsible for the crisis that we’re in?
etc.
Frankly, petr, if Obama pissed in your front yard, you’d say it’s ok since he’s not Bush.
<
p>
I’ve enjoyed reading you much more, but this is really a return to the pre-holiday JohnD.
I believe in a basic premise of doing what “the people” want. This discussion is occurring on BMG and Liberals and Democrats appear to support unions very strongly so any initiative such as the one proposed by Gov Walker will meet severe resistance… as will I for supporting him here.
<
p>So I support the move for multiple reasons… I think the people of Wisconsin should get what they want and I will connect the dots that the landslide victory of their House, Senate, Governor and US Senate seats speaks volumes. I also think the union movement int his country is killing budgets all over the country. We have become immune to the outrageous expenses/excesses of unions in MA as typified by high paid police officers doing “flagman” work on public projects, bogus disability claims, intricate “highest 3 years” pension boondoggles… And I just don’t like the idea of unions (probably my #1 reason for supporting Gov Walker).
<
p>The protests by union workers is just that, a protest by people who’s job will be effected (with bogus remarks about caring for their students, their safety and other spurious excuses). They care about their applecart getting perturbed. Leaders in our country have to start listening to what the majority of Americans want and not smaller interest groups, including the Tea Party protestors if they truly are representing a small minority. If fifty parents call a principle to complain about a central issue of a school… rather than jump at their “demands”, the principle should ascertain what the other 950 parents want to do and not simply react to a vocal minority. Politicians don’t do this for the most part. I hope Gov Walker listens to ALL Wisconsin residents and if the majority want to drop this bill then he should drop the bill, otherwise…
<
p>I’m not trying to trap you or trick you, but how should politicians respond when the people who vote them in want something done? Shouldn’t they try to do it? How should they respond when a vocal minority doesn’t like what they are doing?
You support doing what the people want? So, you support much higher taxes on the rich? Cuts in defense spending? Less corporate influence in politics? Government mandated universal health care? etc. etc. And here in MA, a number of reps pushing for a single payer system (based on recent non-binding referenda)?
<
p>Even GOP-biased polling agencies show strong opposition to Walker’s actions. Yes, the people of Wisconsin wanted him and what he campaigned for. They did not expect or want his current overreach.
<
p>
<
p>Do you have any real evidence to back this up? The Wisconsin situation seems to prove the opposite. The unions have agreed to concessions to avoid most budget problems. Walker’s plan has nothing to do with the budget, it’s all politics. And more than a little blame about budget concerns is to be laid at the feet of tax cuts made without offsetting spending cuts (that is, until problems happen later that require deep cuts). Unfunded pension liabilities are a problem of planning and revenue decisions. For example, a graduated tax in MA on higher incomes would eliminate any pension concerns in MA. I just don’t buy it when someone says on the one hand that unions are killing budgets but on the other hand says that no one can afford or should pay higher taxes. Everything kills a budget when one believes tax rates should be 0%.
but I do think the government should follow what the people want… don’t you? If the majority of Americans want a bill that raises taxes on the rich then it should be followed, whether I like it or not. If the people want mandated healthcare then we should have it. Sorry, I know you’re trying to catch me but I do believe in our leaders doing what we the people want.
<
p>As for the unions, I don’t think the Wisconsin situation is proving that unions do not kill budgets. Do you think their 11th hour concession to pay some more of their healthcare (still below national average) and contribute some more to their pensions (still below national average) is fixing the budget? It’s helping but only killing it “less”. Down at the local level, municipal unions are doing some serious damage to budgets.
<
p>If you want a graduated income tax in MA, then elect politicians to push it through OR start a Referendum Petition to move to a graduated income tax. But when they tried it in 1994, it failed miserably getting only 29.1% in support. THAT is an example of the people getting what they want.
<
p>PS… I was in against the Lame Duck Obama tax cuts for all… I do believe in cutting Defense including the F35 jet engine program…), agree with less influence in politics (starting with the elimination of unions giving hundreds of millions of dollars to the Democrats who will negotiate their union wages… does that sound ethical?) As for single-payer, call me when the majority of MA residents want it, then I’ll disdain it but support the process of the people getting what they want.
Walker threatened sundry take-backs from union workers, but didn’t tell the truth about his real intention — to essentially end unionization.
<
p>This is exactly what Republicans did across the country; they manufactured false crises (e.g., public-service labor is breaking us) to distract attention from the real crises they caused (e.g., corporations and bankers broke us), and campaigned in code so they could wink and nod to their conservative base but look like fiscally responsible saviors to independents. Both sides have learned to campaign in ambiguous terms so they can then do what serves them politically, without clear accountability for a specific mandate. Walker did more than he promised; Obama has done less; neither is doing what he was elected to do.
Lying is when you declare something to be true which you know at the time you say it is not true. Broken, or at least yet to be fulfilled, promise would be more accurate. Ed Schultz laid into the President for this on his show last night and I agree on the merits Obama should go to Wisconsin. Your bitterness and what strikes me of always wanting to find the worst in people who are basically our allies is quite the turn-off, however.
Where’s EFCA? Where’s banning permanent replacements? Why is the next convention in the least unionized state? Why do federal workers have to take a pay freeze while military spending goes essentially unchecked? Where’s immigration reform?
<
p>We’ve gotten Craig Becker and Hilda Solis – both strong advocates for workers, but we got the same kind of thing with Clinton and after NAFTA, Robert Rubin (who Joe Nocera says if there’s one person to blame for the Great Recession, it’s him), Larry Summers and no labor law reform, organized labor and working people can hardly call Clinton their friend, much less an ally.
<
p>I hold my nose and vote for the lesser of two evils every four, where’s that gotten us?
<
p>Generally there are two candidates. And “the lesser of two evils” is hugely better, let’s not forget that.
<
p>
However, there’s an opportunity cost continually backing a corporatist Democratic party.
Conservatives draw some of their power from being willing to lose.
<
p>But that model doesn’t work for us, I don’t think.
It’s not obvious how we go about getting something better than the Democratic Party in power without enduring a decade or two of Michelle Bachmans controlling all three branches of government.
<
p>It’s not as if the Left hasn’t tried to solve this problem either. The 2000 election was a case in point: retroactively it is very difficult to justify a voter for Nader given what the Bush Administration wrought.
I agree with Shirley. We tolerate, coddle, suck up, apologize for, and then vote for them again. I heard Barney speak at an event recently. He used the Henny Youngman gag – How’s your wife? Compared to what? – to illustrate how Democrats are preferable to Republicans, i.e. they may not give you everything you want but they’re far better than the nasty Republican alternatives.
<
p>So there it is. We’ve become the “Compared to What” Party. How can a progressive feel good about supporting the Compared to What Party? This apparent accommodation of settling for less than progressivism comes out of a failure of aspiration and idealism, which begets apathy and cynicism. Actually I don’t know which came first. The corporatist society and Disaster Capitalism have us mesmerized and in a vice grip.
<
p>Think: Egypt and her North African neighbors for examples of breaking out of the vice grip.
But if we do not tolerate, coddle, and suck up, in the end, we still have two choices.
<
p>So how do we IMPROVE the Democratic Party?
Progressives show up and get involved in larger numbers?
I feel like we should narrow our issue focus. We sweat too much small stuff.
Don’t know what issues you’d focus on. Nationally I think Obama and coterie (e.g. Rahm and Timmie) have skirted Tier 1 issues like War, Serious Health System Reform and Serious Financial Reform and snagged some wins on easier Tier 2 stuff. The United States of America is too precious to neglect like that. What large stuff and small stuff to you? Nationally or on the state level.
Nationally, I would say economic justice (better regulations, or better enforcement of regulations), public safety in the form of clean air, water, and emission controls, education, poverty reduction efforts, housing improvements where needed, transitional programs and the like.
<
p>On the state level, similar stuff, with an added one I would call quality of life: NO casinos, for example, because a casino may bring revenue but it destroys whatever community houses it.
<
p>Also, Bill of Rights protections. Free speech above all, closing Gitmo, elimination of exporting torture abroad (“extraordinary rendition”).
<
p>The small stuff is battles over the fate of individuals, be they Howard Dean, Elizabeth Warren, or John Bolton. I don’t know why we expend energy over who gets what job. In the case of Warren, the important thing is that the agency was created, not that she run it. If she wants to run for Senate, fine, I’ll give her every consideration because I do like her. But I’m not signing on to a draft movement for her (or anyone else). There have been other little freakouts over little things Obama has erred on — but I don’t really care about his little mistakes, he’s going to make them. I want us out of Afghanistan.
<
p>Dickering over fees — Raise turnpike tolls? Charge more for commuter parking? Raise the driver’s license renewal fee? — is also small stuff that hurts progressive causes more broadly. We end up reinforcing the notion that any government expense just gets passed on to voters. Then we hunker down and say, “No new taxes,” and no one argues because we’ve nickel and dimed then. We pay a price (literally) for our own pettiness.
<
p>Your mileage, of course, may vary. But to bring it back to casinos for a second, when the debate shifted to “Slots at tracks or no slots at tracks?”, it became pretty clear that casinos were coming either way. Unfortunate. But for me personally, the “jobs” argument began to wear me down. I felt like a liberal elitist who was lucky enough to have a steady job. I don’t aspire to be a liberal elitist, and the battle seems lost, so on to the next one.
Within
do you include breaking up “too big to fail” institutions?
I think I would take it case by case. There is a lot of linkage in our system; AIG, for example, really might have been too big to fail. I defer to the experts.
<
p>I’d like to see more companies deemed too big to merge.
<
p>
<
p>Everything we progressives have is as a result of half-measures, compromises, and sometimes being just a little bit better than the other guy. The most aggressive liberal we ever had was LBJ and he didn’t get nearly as much as he set out to get. It’s not like being progressive suddenly became an uphill struggle after serene decades of unimpeded forward progress… You act as though we’ve ‘lost’ some art of progression that, honestly, we never had.
<
p>When has it ever NOT been “compared to what…?” ?
Then
LBJ got plenty, far more than BHO has achieved to date (and in saying “to date,” I am not implying I think Obama’s got some major progressive triumphs in store for us). LBJ’s specific liberal ambitions, level of fight and accomplishments were far more clear and effective than BHO’s even though Vietnam’s distractions eventually derailed him. So, not a good comparison. I’d be happy if Obama made liberal breakthroughs like LBJ’s or at least put up a strong fight. He’s done neither IMHO.
… but especially civil rights… LBJ had to be brought to the table kicking and screaming. Medicare was amendments to social security that was a vastly scaled down version of a comprehensive national health care plan first introduced by Truman in the early 50s. I repeat, LBJ was our most aggressive liberal president and he didn’t get as nearly as far as he wanted…. I guess progressivism is hard.
<
p> It’s natural, I think, to look back on the past as unambiguously cleaner and declarative in intent, but the truth is that then, as now, things were pretty muddled. In this respect, I ask again, “when has it been different…?” It’s also a mistake to look to the future wherein one fantasize that the righteous combination of liberal ideology, aggressive intent and political jujitsu will automagically sweep away any and all opposition. Neither a rosy view of the past nor a political messiah to come will substitute for the hard work needed.
Wisconsin is the Egypt of union-busting. What happens here will set the tone for the rest of the country. He should be showing his position with his presence immediately, as people expected of Bush at Katrina. You agree.
<
p>So…except for my attitude, we’re together on this, right?
<
p>No, wait, you think he’s basically an ally. He is not. (Nor is Deval, whom I believe you are including as a victim of my bitterness (and for whose first campaign I foolishly worked)). They are enablers of the far right. A Democrat who gets elected to clean up a financial disaster and hires as advisers the makers of the disaster is not an ally. A Democrat who hires as his education czar a proponent of school privatization through charters is not an ally (and charters, aside from union-busting, are not “public” in the most important sense: they don’t have to educate all the children, only the ones they want to educate). The lesser of two evils is not an ally; he is an enabler that makes evil look like a reasonable option.
<
p>We can’t afford to vote like this any more. Isn’t that obvious?
Yes, I include the Governor, whom I see as better than the President in many ways on the liberal front. There are some things I’m not quite as upset as you apparently are. Whenever I start to get too upset, and I have been critical some too, I take a breath and remind myself it could have been McCain/Baker.
It’s the end of the world, again, as we know it…
<
p>
<
p>Todays panic has been brought to you by the letters ‘O‘, ‘M‘ and ‘G‘, proud sponsors of over-stressed adrenal glands everywhere! Remember kids, the dress code for today is ‘disaster casual’: don’t face the end of all things without the proper wardrobe.
<
p>
<
p>Today’s Hobsons choice has been brought to you by the letters ‘W‘, ‘T‘ and ‘F‘, proud sponsors of the W C. Fields memorial quizzical leer. Because we all know that only the pure-hearted and righteous are to worthy of our votes. Remember our motto: if it’s not perfect, it’s not good enough.
<
p>
<
p>Really? Here’s a hint: the great leap forward you’re looking for…. It ain’t gonna happen. Here’s another hint: all those past moments of progressive glory and liberal righteousness…? They didn’t happen like the readers digest condensed versions say they happened. They all involved far more pain and slogging compromises than you’re willing to admit. It has always and ever been thus. Things don’t change. You can flash back to 1935 and see FDR dithering on budgetary issues in much the same way Obama is dithering now. Truman proposed national single payer health care in 1952 and 13 years later the water-down version of it got passed as an amendment to Social Security reform. It is call Medicare. LBJ dithered on civil rights like nobodies bidness… FDR, Truman and LBJ all had their own versions of leftists anklebiters perennially disappointed and who felt betrayal even more keenly than you do…
<
p>And here’s yet another clue: people are going to keep voting Republican until somebody actually gets hurt. Wisconsin is learning that fact now. You can’t stop it. I can’t stop it. It’s going to happen. And it’s going to hurt. Lighting up your rage and turning it on people who would otherwise be your allies only makes everybody hurt more. How’s that working for ya?
Just curious.
Has gotten us to where we are now. I think we need to unseat Democrats who push further right, or else we’ll continue to move further right.
<
p>Howard Dean would make a great candidate.
I totally understand your frustration. I have been hugely disappointed with Obama on a host of issues (economy, tax cuts, choice, gitmo, the war on terror, afghanistan, etc.) and I really haven’t made up my mind yet as far as 2012. I still think he could turn things around, but I am not overly optimistic. The fact of the matter is that he is markedly better than anything today’s Republican party can put up. I hate the better of two evils game, but I think we’re doomed to repeat it nationally if we keep doing what we’re doing at lower levels.
<
p>We have to stop failing at the local and state level by not being engaged and just checking off the box next to the person with the D next to their name (i.e. Joyce Spiliotis, Bill Galvin, etc.). Democratic incumbents rarely lose primaries in this state and that is a big problem.
<
p>We need to get behind people like Mac D’Alessandro when they challenge weak Dem incumbents. Support progressive and green party candidates for school committee or city council, and help build a viable alternative to the Dem party. (I think the statewide Green Party campaigns have actually served to help generate contempt for Greens rather than help them gain broader support.)
<
p>Most importantly, we need to run for these offices. The best way to ensure that a candidate is one that you will be proud of is to be that candidate yourself.
<
p>
You are BMG, so you have to blame yourself for not posting on this sooner if you think it is so important.
<
p>In any case I would like to hear more from you than whining about why other people haven’t found solutions to tough problems. Why don’t you at least make a feeble attempt to make some constructive suggestions for what should be done other than engage in more useless finger pointing.
<
p>Personally, I wonder whether Obama appearing in WI might cause more harm than good. Do you think that Obama should live up to the most extreme reading of all of his campaign promises even when they might cause harm?
<
p>It is totally to fair to ask whether Obama could be supporting labor causes more effectively, but to label that he is a liar if he doesn’t show up immediately at a rally in WI is stupid.
<
p>
because of the “stupid” comment at the end. However, I’m not deleting it, because the question whether Obama’s showing up in WI would do more harm than good is worth discussing, and because I’m generously chalking up the errant “stupid” comment to an excess of posting before thinking rather than malicious intent.
<
p>However, in the future, please stick to the rules.
Have you ever been convinced by someone who called you “stupid?” Even in the third grade? I didn’t think so.
But Shirley came in guns ablaze. “What the hell is wrong with you people?”, in effect.
<
p>
HR’s Kevin does not accuse Shirley Kressel of being a stupid person, rather he is asserting that her reasoning on a specific matter is suboptimal. That’s not against the RoR as I read them.
No, he’s not. He asserted that it was “stupid” – an aggressively insulting word that inevitably constitutes a personal attack (even if not specifically directed at the person but rather something the person said) and immediately shuts off discussion. We want to encourage discussion, not shut it down. Saying that someone’s reasoning is “suboptimal” just isn’t the same kind of attack, because the word is much less insulting.
I made an attempt. I worked for months on Jill Stein’s gubernatorial campaign to take corporate money out of politics, stop corporate welfare, support public schools (not charters, which are not public in the most basic way — they don’t have to educate all comers, only the ones they want), full funding for higher ed, government transparency, fair taxation, etc. I’ve worked for other candidates (including Deval Patrick, the first time) who promised these things. I’ve been researching and publishing in newspapers about good government issues for fifteen years, and organizing citizen advocacy toward these goals.
<
p>Whether or not you like Stein or the Green Party, you should fight for these basic progressive principles. We have to be willing to hold incumbents accountable, or tell them we will find other candidates who will give us the governance we want. Voting for politicians who renege on their promises as the lesser of two evils, will not get us there.
<
p>We have to know when to let go of our comfortable illusions and hopes, and take on the harder fight. Even Thomas Friedman has written that we need a third party. We’ve run out of “lesser of two evils” wiggle room; we can’t afford even the lesser level of evil, as are seeing now.
<
p>
Did anyone think that the talk of comfortable shoes and walking was a metaphor? The problem with some of the left wing Obama critics is that they bought into the messianic complex so much they have become fundamentalists when it comes to the exact wording of his remarks and do not judge him based on his actions. No President, with all the international crises they have to manage, let alone their packed schedules, is going to waste his scant precious time literally protesting something he can’t control. Obama has walked this particularly picket line by appearing via satellite to the protesters and supporting them in word and hopefully in some action soon (executive orders protecting bargaining at the federal level have been rumored). I don’t see what else he can do? These are the same critics that foolishly say “i thought i elected a community organizer” as if they want the President to waste his time going doorknocking as opposed to, I don’t know, using his actual power. Last time I checked I voted for a lawmaker, not a community organizer, and Obama has made and passed some fairly impressive laws, and has been far more progressive on these issues than most of his Democratic predecessors. FDR never walked a picket line, neither did Truman, JFK, or LBJ. Would anyone assail their pro-labor records?
<
p>Gosh people I think he meant to say he would use the bully pulpit of the presidency to advocate for progressive positions and labor, which he certainly as. Andy Stern had a key role on budget issues, does anyone think Clinton (DLC-Arkansas) would have allowed labor a place at the table? He certainly didn’t on NAFTA, China, WTO, or even Hillarycare. Criticize him for moving to the center on foreign policy, civil liberties, and other areas where his rhetoric really does fall short from his actions. Expecting him to literally walk a picket line strikes me as naivete at best and a cheap shot at worse.
However, it seems that most of what Obama said on the campaign trail was a metaphor.
<
p>These days, I want to believe that Democrats mean what they say, and Republicans don’t.
but you don’t like or agree with what they are saying?
that was sab’s point.
Well, most of it. Republicans aren’t dumb enough to say everything they want. But when the Republicans mean that they’re on-board with making ideological murder legal (South Dakota), outlawing marriage (Texas), arbitrarily firing state workers (Wisconsin), thrashing the world economy through an American default (DC), I’m sure they mean it.
I’d be OK with him not literally walking a picket line if he at very least spoke with force from the White House to clearly say that he is on their side. Instead he acts as if it is a big distraction.
In 1978, Democrat Jimmy Carter signed a law passed by the Democratic Congress – the Civil Service Reform Act. This took many work conditions out of collective bargaining, made strikes illegal except in very specific conditions(Reagan was able to fire the striking air traffic controllers under this law), and allowed people not to join unions as a job condition.
<
p>So far from slipping on comfortable shoes, Obama IS the Mubarek-like tyrant making the decisions about working conditions on the backs of the Federal union serfs, starved for daylight and dreaming of deliverance.
<
p>If he appeared on that picket line, this might become an issue.
Lesseee…scroll down…
<
p>
<
p>Hmm… Nothing here for ‘incoherent’…