What does it say about the Democratic party that...

We have a thread nearly at the top of the greatest page thanking an Independent/Socialist for vigorously defending what once was a traditional Democratic position in the face of the party leader's abandonment of that very position?

I am seriously baffled by this. The leadership's move is so 'in your face' to me, and defies historical data about what happens when similar things that didn't work have been done by the opposition.

:shrug:

-Hoot

Edit: grammar fix.

Well, I take that back. Certainly not in the Tea Party or the Republican Party.

Arrogance
Disdain
Contempt
Condescension
Imperial

Obama has shown that he's just another neoliberal member of the ruling class.

The people are peasants--producer and consumer units.

You forgot to add 'meat shields for the war effort'.

Unemployed people trying to feed themselves and their families make willing fodder for IEDs.

The 'usual suspects' arguments have gone from specious to flat out delusional. If you want, I'll tell you about the 'centrist independents'.

What happens when you don't:



The leaders who don't are changed and the Constitution becomes a thing of the past...

Well without the SS standing down, lol.

I hope you are well my friend.

-Hoot

Maybe if everybody had got out to vote in November instead of staying home and bitching on the Internet about how mad they are at the Democrats, this wouldn't have happened. I'm just saying. Obama has little choice in what he does now. The Republicans have the House and the Democrats never had the Senate, not even before.

The people who stayed home were the supposed moderates that Obama's 3-dimensional capitulation chess was supposedly going to win over.

Oops.. they don't like being ground up and fed to the banks and health insurance industry so much, either.

I don't know any. Those unsophisticated enough not to vote are not sophisticated enough to carry on a political discussion on places like this.

Given what happened after the 2008 election. Perhaps that had something to do with voter turnout that you seem to think would have changed what the President would do.

Personally, I have my doubts it would have made any difference in the 'deal' being 'shoved down our throats.'

-Hoot

We're bitchin' because we're paying attention - not glazed over in front of DWTS.

I've never missed voting in 30+ years. Not starting now.

Far fewer in the meat world did. Bitch about voter apathy somewhere else.

The Dems lost some blue Dogs, and some key liberals. Any attempt to claim that Obama caused that is silly.

We lost because Dems in the House and Senate are cowards. Obama can not write the legislation for them. The Dems in the House and Senate needed to stand AS ONE.

The GOP's plan was to stand AS ONE, and block all legislation ... and failing that, to WEAKEN all other legislation. And then, when the economy moved too slowly, to use that to anger the American people, most of whom follow none of this, and are currently voting for the next Dancing with the Stars winner.

The GOP wants those folks to suffer, and have them blame Obama and the Dems. And their plan is working.

The Dems in the Senate can pass a resolution that the sky is BLUE ... and the House was petrified to pass a tax cut for the middle class extension until AFTER the 2010 mid-terms.

The GOP was able to get the racists to the polls. They were able to tell the galacticly stupid that a Kenyan raised their taxes. And the media helped.

And now, the left is doing what the GOP wanted all along ... BLAME OBAMA, and not the GOP, for every ill.

The recent "deal" he cut behind closed doors with the Republicans and dropped on the Democratic Caucus is a perfect example.

Giving Away (excuse me..."compromising away" the Public Option) behind closed doors and then telling the Senate what they must do is another example.

Congress carried water for Obama for two years. Congress gave the President pretty much everything he wanted. We had a very disciplined caucus. Most Democrats in Congress supported the President's agenda and did not make waves, even if they privately disagreed with him. They did not challenge him, for the most part, in public.

Then came the 2010 elections, and Democrats in Congress got to see, first hand, what they gained by following Obama lock-step. They were slaughtered.

Now, Congressional Democrats are finding their independence again. Personally, I think that's a good thing.

-Laelth

:applause:

And cogent!

-Hoot

The administration's response was to vilify Assange, try to criminalize him and to extra legally bump Wikileaks off line.

And just when the rhetoric at DU was moving back near "civil" again. :(

I don't know where to step right now. Can't support the administration's behavior, don't want to see Obama trashing here for the foreseeable future. :shrug:

I think for me it's the recognition that I have lost hope. Perhaps I'm simply mourning what should have been.

:hug:

-Hoot

that Wikileaks wasn't revealing misdeeds because I've read some of the cables and knew that she knew what she was saying was not true.

That's what "appalling" means -- having the life scared out of you to the point where you are "white as a ghost".

So. It's difficult to have our two former candidates intimately involved in this Wikileaks situation. It's difficult to stay in the mindset of a Democratic party supporter when it's not Bush but your own party that's so actively persecuting someone like Julian Assange.

But maybe the idea is to disagree with the kind of response to the Wikileaks crisis that we are seeing. To disagree rationally and civilly as possible, to try not to be swept up in the (understandable and even healthy) emotional response.

is tragic, and we are :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry:

the party has been taken over by corporate water-carriers

....AGAIN!!!!!!

when will enough people get it?

I will follow suit.