TX Gov Rick Perry Wants to Be President

Texas Governor Rick Perry has officially declared himself a candidate for the Republican nomination for President. He and Mitt Romney are now considered frontrunners.

No matter how disappointed you are with Obama and the Democrats, any Republican would be far worse.

I don't want Republicans picking Supreme Court Justices. I don't want them making economic policy. They would be the worst by far on crime policy.

Things are bad now, but there's no need to make them worse.

< Pelosi Names House Dems for Budget Deficit Committee | Friday Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Well (5.00 / 4) (#4)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 11, 2011 at 06:35:56 PM EST
    Obama seems to agree with most of their agenda so what's one to do?

    I'm not sure that Obama wouldn't put a Republican on the supreme court to be all "bipartisan" or would nominate the ones the GOP want since it might require fighting to actually put a decent nominee forward. There's one thing that Obama has been consistent with time after time: he will take the path of least resistance.

    I couldn't agree more (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by txpolitico67 on Thu Aug 11, 2011 at 08:39:36 PM EST
    I have never seen a Democrat want to be Ronald Reagan so bad it's not even funny

    But Perry might set up... (5.00 / 4) (#162)
    by lambert on Sat Aug 13, 2011 at 05:52:07 AM EST
    ... some kind of extra-constitutional process to cut Medicare and Social Security! And then where would we be? Oh, wait...

    Sotomayor and Kagan (none / 0) (#100)
    by MKS on Fri Aug 12, 2011 at 09:57:32 AM EST
    There is a track record here.

    Does anyone think that Sotomayor or Kagan?  


    ....would have been nominated by McCain? (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by MKS on Fri Aug 12, 2011 at 09:58:27 AM EST
    Do you think (none / 0) (#103)
    by jbindc on Fri Aug 12, 2011 at 10:05:41 AM EST
    Stevens or Souter would have retired if McCain had won?

    Stevens, yes...... (none / 0) (#108)
    by MKS on Fri Aug 12, 2011 at 10:36:55 AM EST
    On deck is Ginsburg....and it is taking a big risk to assume she will always be there.....

    True (none / 0) (#110)
    by jbindc on Fri Aug 12, 2011 at 10:40:53 AM EST
    But Scalia is alos 75 years old and one cannoli away from a heart attack.

    I don't thin Stevens would have gone under a McCain administration unless he was carted out in a hearse.


    Why does the Court matter.... (5.00 / 2) (#163)
    by lambert on Sat Aug 13, 2011 at 05:54:10 AM EST
    ... if we don't have the rule of law anyhow?

    For the banksters, we surely don't. Otherwise, they would have been prosecuted for the pervasive accounting control fraud that led to the financial crisis and the collapse of the housing market.


    Yes (none / 0) (#168)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Aug 13, 2011 at 09:06:41 AM EST
    but that was with a Democratic Senate. It's likely that if Obama has a second term, he'll have a Republican Senate and we've all seen how well that's worked with having a GOP house...

    Obama will be worse (5.00 / 6) (#8)
    by observed on Thu Aug 11, 2011 at 07:09:01 PM EST
    in a second  term

    Agreed (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by klassicheart on Thu Aug 11, 2011 at 10:08:55 PM EST
    Obama has put the Democratic stamp on Republican  policies...he has demonstrated failed leadership...why do we want the lasting image of a failed Democrat burned into American consciousness?
    In thirty years, has Jimmy Carter lived down his failed leadership?  Bill Clinton restored the image of Democrats as competent economically and in foreign policy.  Liberals and progressives destroyed that by nominating Obama....And after 8 years of Obama, a Democrat will never be elected President again.  

    We had an opportunity as Democrats in 2008...Bush was a disaster and ruined the image of Republicans as competent at anything.  Obama has singlehandedly destroyed what Democratic leadership stands for...because he is incompetent and not a leader.  We can't keep a loser because he is a Democratic loser.  We must be intellectually honest and hold our leaders accountable.


    Please, don't call Obama incompetent (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by NYShooter on Thu Aug 11, 2011 at 10:29:15 PM EST
    Insensitive, duplicitous, treacherous, unsympathetic, elites, but not incompetent.

    can we setttle on "disastrous"? (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by observed on Thu Aug 11, 2011 at 10:40:22 PM EST
    Also, he has all the empathy of  a Dickens French nobleman. (reading tale of two cities presently)

    "disastrous" is good, (none / 0) (#86)
    by NYShooter on Fri Aug 12, 2011 at 03:31:49 AM EST
    We'll put that right between "duplicitous" and "treacherous."

    And, for those who may not get Observed's reference to Dickens, "elites" gives you an idea.


    Unfortunately, I don't think we will have to (5.00 / 3) (#94)
    by MO Blue on Fri Aug 12, 2011 at 09:00:42 AM EST
    wait for a second term for Obama to be worse.

    Obama's policies are going to be much worse from now until the end of his first term. The agenda that Obama was sent to D.C. to accomplished will be almost completed by the end of his first term.  Another major transfers of funds from the poor and the middle class to corporations and the top 1 - 2% will be the result of Cat FoodII. The safety net programs will be restructured to allow for them to be easily privatized and/or eliminated in the near future. Taxes will be lowered significantly once again for corporations and the top 1 - 2%. A major cost shift of health care costs away from the government, corporations and the insurance companies onto to individuals will have been legislated. It will be firmly established that government is the problem and not the solution in the minds of the citizens. Additional civil liberties have been eroded and whistle blowers silenced through arrest and prosecution.      


    Yep (none / 0) (#14)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Aug 11, 2011 at 07:17:55 PM EST
    That's when he'll be really dangerous.

    TL polling question: (5.00 / 3) (#19)
    by shoephone on Thu Aug 11, 2011 at 07:27:07 PM EST
    Which debate moderator will dare to ask Perry why he's running to be president of the country he wanted Texas to secede from last year?

    Oh, Perry is a weasel (5.00 / 3) (#31)
    by KeysDan on Thu Aug 11, 2011 at 08:29:32 PM EST
    and he would weasel his way out.  "My friends, it is an understandable frustration,  but the great state of Texas does not feel as if it wants to  seced from the Union, it is the Union that has seceded from the values and ideals of Texas." "And, I would say more, but my beautiful hair is falling in my eyes" (applause, standing ovation).

    Second question, this one for Jeralyn: (5.00 / 3) (#21)
    by shoephone on Thu Aug 11, 2011 at 07:33:08 PM EST
    Does your Obama pink slip letter still apply? Are cutting social security and medicare still your lines in the sand? Is there any doubt the congressional mob of twelve is going to recommend doing just that? And isn't that exactly the kind of budget cutting legislation Obama will gladly sign, especially if minor (and ultimately, insufficient) tax increases are included?

    My Obama pink slip still applies (5.00 / 4) (#75)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Aug 12, 2011 at 12:31:02 AM EST
    I haven't decided if I'm voting for him in 2012. I can assure you I won't vote for a Republican. It's either voting for him or not voting. I don't think he'll be re-elected if he allows the gang of 12 to delay medicare to 67 or cut social security.

    I would prefer him to a Republican, but it doesn't mean I'll vote for him.  

    Raising the Medicare eligibility age is my line in the sand. It makes me beyond angry that as a self-employed person, I pay 15.3% a year into Medicare and Social Security (as the employer and employee) on top of already high federal and state and local taxes. The extra two years of not getting Medicare will  cost me $25,000. to keep private health insurance another two years (65 to 67.) plus $6,000 in deductibles and all that the policy doesn't cover. And I'm healthy with no illnesses or pre-existing conditions.  It also means I will pay many thousands to extend my disability policy past age 65 --I checked the policy the other day and am at least thankful that my policy, which I've had since age 33, will allow me to do it -- although it will be at the current rates for 65 year olds which surely will be at least $1,000 a month. Many policies don't give you that option.

    My high school graduating class (1,000 of us) have a new facebook page. I was thinking, if every graduating class for 1967 and 1968 mobilized, there would be a few million people who could be a pretty effective voice for trying to stop the gang of 12 from raising the age. It doesn't really matter what people's politics are. Every person who will be 64 and 65 in 2013 when they plan to implement the change is going to be angry when they look at what they've paid in and see how they are getting gypped.


    Thank you for your thoughtful response, Jeralyn (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by shoephone on Fri Aug 12, 2011 at 12:50:56 AM EST
    I got the clarification I was seeking. All who have been paying into these insurance programs for so many years deserve to be treated with fairness. And for those of us who have run our own businesses and paid in more because of it, the prospect of getting scr*wed really does feel like throwing salt into the wound.

    For the record, I would never vote for a Republican either. (And Bernie Sanders still seems like a better option for me than not voting at all.)


    I don't think not voting is an option (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by Faust on Fri Aug 12, 2011 at 09:56:41 AM EST
    You have to show up somewhere in the metrics. If you wind up chosing not to vote for Obama, find a a third party to vote for, or failing that, write something in. If you just don't vote at all, you'll be indistinguishable from the people who don't vote because they don't care. There is no way to tell a vote witheld out of protest from a vote witheld out of apathy.

    There's also no way to tell that one's (5.00 / 2) (#114)
    by Anne on Fri Aug 12, 2011 at 11:47:53 AM EST
    third-party or write-in is a protest or a vote cast from commitment to a particular candidate.

    And actually, undervoting does mean something; when all the votes are counted, and it shows that there were fewer votes cast in a particular race than the number of people who showed up to vote, it says those people chose "None of the above."

    And, for what it's worth, if I take the time to educate myself about the issues and the candidates, identify what's important to me, and show up at the polls to cast votes for those candidates and local issues I deem worthy, I think I do show up in the metrics.

    As someone who was an assistant chief election judge in my precinct in 2008 (and prior), who took the training, who showed up the night before to set up, and at 6:00 am on election day, and worked until after midnight - but who didn't cast a vote for president - I personally don't give a rat's patootie what anyone thinks about whether I did or did not "show up."


    I think we need a Boomers movement (none / 0) (#80)
    by nycstray on Fri Aug 12, 2011 at 01:06:42 AM EST
    I'm like you, mostly paying in as a self-employed person. BUT! even if I had been employed by a company(s) for the past 30 yrs, I'd still feel cheated and p*ssed as all h*ll if they changed the game on me. And I KNOW I'm not alone.

    And they want us to vote for them?

    I think not.

    And if they don't think folks are paying attention, I would hazard a guess, they would be wrong. Too many of us have too much invested.


    NOBODY's SS should be cut!! (5.00 / 4) (#166)
    by lambert on Sat Aug 13, 2011 at 06:01:37 AM EST
    Not just Boomers, EVERYBODY! Let's not throw the youth under the bus.

    And while we're at it, Medicare should be expanded, not cut.


    Never said/suggested that (5.00 / 1) (#177)
    by nycstray on Sat Aug 13, 2011 at 12:49:03 PM EST
    I don't think anyone's should be cut, but Boomers are the largest group and, I think, closer to the issue than the youth. Our goal should be saving SS/MC2 for all.

    I think we should open MC up to all.


    But the idea is to raise the age (none / 0) (#111)
    by MKS on Fri Aug 12, 2011 at 10:41:33 AM EST
    for the younger boomers, those under 55, no?

    That is the insidious way to slowly start gutting a very good program that helps the middle class....


    Many under 55 have been paying in for (5.00 / 2) (#120)
    by nycstray on Fri Aug 12, 2011 at 01:42:40 PM EST
    25-35 years already. Heck, I'm pretty sure folks who have paid in for 20yrs also won't be too happy. "Older" workers are getting hit pretty hard these days . . .

    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by chrisvee on Fri Aug 12, 2011 at 05:23:22 PM EST
    I'm in my late 40s and I've been paying in for over 30 years.

    I'm pretty sure as a late year boomer I'm going to get massively screwed while everyone above 55 is protected. And I'm pretty darned angry about it.


    That's Ryan's idea (none / 0) (#159)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Aug 13, 2011 at 12:44:33 AM EST
    Obama's isn't known, but his proposal on raising the Medicare age is for it to go into effect right away in 2014.

    Oy (5.00 / 1) (#171)
    by MKS on Sat Aug 13, 2011 at 11:03:10 AM EST
    Vey (5.00 / 1) (#172)
    by MKS on Sat Aug 13, 2011 at 11:03:34 AM EST
    No third party? No write in? (none / 0) (#164)
    by lambert on Sat Aug 13, 2011 at 05:57:51 AM EST
    Why not?

    This is a democratic site (none / 0) (#27)
    by waldenpond on Thu Aug 11, 2011 at 08:08:42 PM EST
    I don't get why people keep asking this... when the pink slip was drafted, it stated 'we' not 'I' meaning that certain demographics might possibly be upset enough by cuts to medicare and social security that they might not vote for him.

    Also, she has stated repeatedly, that this is a Democratic site.  It always supports the Dem.


    Even when the Dem (none / 0) (#40)
    by txpolitico67 on Thu Aug 11, 2011 at 09:07:09 PM EST
    is willing to gut cornerstone Democratic programs like Medicare and Social Security?  That makes Talk Left a cult.  Guess it's time for me to be deleted/removed/booted/excommunicated.  Cheers to you all.

    So...where are you coming from? (none / 0) (#41)
    by christinep on Thu Aug 11, 2011 at 09:08:26 PM EST
    That's not at all what Jeralyn said (none / 0) (#45)
    by shoephone on Thu Aug 11, 2011 at 09:23:34 PM EST
    in her pink slip letter posts. And since there were two of those posts here, very recently, I think it's worth asking for new clarification.

    She just gave a very clear clarification (none / 0) (#50)
    by CoralGables on Thu Aug 11, 2011 at 09:48:58 PM EST
    "No matter how disappointed you are with Obama and the Democrats, any Republican would be far worse."

    So... all of this (5.00 / 4) (#62)
    by shoephone on Thu Aug 11, 2011 at 10:53:31 PM EST
    -- which was posted, not once, but on two different occasions --

    Dear President Obama,

    We know you don't like baby boomers, but you wouldn't have been elected without us.

    If reports are true that you are willing to endorse a raise in the eligibility age for Medicare, please consider this your pink slip.

    We are the largest generation in history, and we vote. Please think long and hard before throwing us under the bus. We will surely take you with us.

    Talk Left

    was not to be taken seriously, eh? Then, why post it in the first place? Because I don't think you can have it both ways, ie., "If you do x, then I will withhold my vote from you" vs. "I'll vote for you no matter what, because the alternative is always worse." It's one or the other, and I want to know which one is the real position, and which one is the toy position.

    I posed my question to Jeralyn, and I think I will wait for her response, rather than the responses of those who seek to respond on her behalf.


    Exactly. Votes which are never withheld (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by observed on Thu Aug 11, 2011 at 11:20:25 PM EST
    cannot be used as bargaining chips.
    Voters can give into hostage-takers too!
    Obama, 100 times worse than most people imagined, holds the 2012 Dems hostage by threatening them with Bachman or Romney.Ugh.

    What kind of "pink slip" is it then... (none / 0) (#165)
    by lambert on Sat Aug 13, 2011 at 05:59:52 AM EST
    ...  when no firing takes place?

    Yes, let's all be happy with how bad (5.00 / 10) (#29)
    by Anne on Thu Aug 11, 2011 at 08:22:58 PM EST
    things are, and take comfort - can you pay the mortgage with that? - that things could be worse.

    And they likely will be, between now and election day, as Obama and his rubber-stamp Dems remain firmly committed to some of the worst economic and fiscal policy since Herbert Hoover.

    I have no idea why anyone would cast a vote for that, I really don't.  

    But I do know that as long as people keep willing to lower the bar, the quality of candidates, the quality of representation, and the quality of governance will continue to decline.

    a very true statement (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by klassicheart on Fri Aug 12, 2011 at 02:15:03 AM EST
    but obviously the propagandists have gamed this out and come to the conclusion that this strategy is more successful with Democrats than with Republicans...which should lead one to conclude that Dems, who think of themselves as pragmatic caring souls who help others,....are really dupes.
    And apparently want to keep being dupes.  So they will twist logic to its gruesome extreme.

    My heart says I agree (none / 0) (#59)
    by Peter G on Thu Aug 11, 2011 at 10:31:08 PM EST
    but my head hurts when I consider the alternatives.

    That about sums it up (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by nycstray on Fri Aug 12, 2011 at 12:55:57 AM EST
    sadly . . .

    I will say, thank dawg I live in a blue state! I at least have somewhere to go on the ballot.


    FWIW (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by NYShooter on Fri Aug 12, 2011 at 03:28:36 PM EST
    Just heard on the radio, latest poll in NY, for the first time has Obama,   approve: 47%
    disaprove: 51%

    That is significant, very significant. (n/t) (none / 0) (#173)
    by Towanda on Sat Aug 13, 2011 at 12:28:28 PM EST
    Obama's strategy to cut the deficit on (none / 0) (#175)
    by MO Blue on Sat Aug 13, 2011 at 12:43:36 PM EST
    the backs of the poor and the middle class does not seem to be resonating with the group he is supposedly targeting (i.e. independent voters).  

    Democrats approve 75 - 19 percent, down from 82 - 12 percent in June. Disapproval is 86 - 10 percent among Republicans, compared to a 74 - 23 percent disapproval in June, and 58 - 36 percent among independent voters, compared to a slightly positive 49 - 45 percent in June, the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University poll finds.link

    His true target group is more accurately measured by the funds raised at high priced campaign dinners than by the polls.


    My heart would like to vote with (5.00 / 4) (#143)
    by Anne on Fri Aug 12, 2011 at 09:21:07 PM EST
    all the promise and hope for better Democratic governance; my head knows we're not going to get it, no matter who we vote for.

    As we have watched this president, and many Democratic members of Congress, slide more and more to the right, adopting policies and positions that not so very long ago we would have only seen from Republicans, it's getting less and less scary to contemplate that a Republican might be elected president.

    In fact, there are times when I think the only thing that might bring more ideological tension to the mix is to take out of the picture the one person who keeps trying to blur the differences between the parties - Barack Obama.

    Yes, there's that whole Supreme Court thing, but you know, I just no longer have any level of trust where this president is concerned.


    I think our heads are going (none / 0) (#88)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Aug 12, 2011 at 04:51:16 AM EST
    to hurt a lot.  Hopefully in this economy we can find enough Aleve and Ibuprofen to get to the polls.

    Then, Peter, wouldn't you ask (none / 0) (#132)
    by christinep on Fri Aug 12, 2011 at 05:22:47 PM EST
    whether your decisions on voting usually come from the "heart" or the "head" (in the event that you find you cannot have both in an instance?)

    Choosing between Obama and Rick Perry (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by txpolitico67 on Thu Aug 11, 2011 at 08:44:03 PM EST
    is like choosing between a colonoscopy and a root canal...w/o any anesthetic.  And as a Texan who has had to suffer this idiot on top of the one before, I know.  And, Obama, whom I never supported or voted for (I wrote in Hillary's name), never, ever claimed to be a liberal candidate.  His skin color wasn't a guarantee.  He spoke of a 'purple nation', not a blue or red one.  But by the looks of it, since he's been in office, he tends to trend more red than blue.  

    Hey, TP... (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by easilydistracted on Thu Aug 11, 2011 at 09:24:33 PM EST
    I'm thinking the gov might have a hard time overcoming some of his shenanigans with the general electorate  -- his handling of the investigation into the Cameron Willingham case, comes to mind. The citizens of Texas seem to turn a blind eye on his dubious behavior.  I'm not so sure he'll get a free pass outside the state, as more of his questionable behavior comes to light. Maybe its merely wishful thinking on my part. Your thoughts?

    No thank you! (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by mmc9431 on Thu Aug 11, 2011 at 09:12:11 PM EST
    The country hasn't begun to recover from the last Texas president. Another would surely send us over the brink.

    In addition to that, any politician who thinks God will cure what ails us shouldn't be allowed outside without a leash.

    If you believe Perry (none / 0) (#69)
    by klassicheart on Thu Aug 11, 2011 at 11:57:10 PM EST
    is a true believer, which I don't.  But he is power hungry and ruthless.  Bachmann is a true believer...but Perry is a successful politician...If the public bought Bush over Gore (and Gore had 8 successful years to brag about) it is not unthinkable they'd elect Perry.  And Perry could be more dangerous than Bush. Again, I blame the left for these fiascos.

    Rick Perry is a whole (none / 0) (#78)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Aug 12, 2011 at 12:51:28 AM EST
    different deal than George Bush, who was so obviously a Connecticut blue blood with cowboy boots, not to mention the son of another very eastern establishment president.

    Democrats have to (5.00 / 4) (#49)
    by observed on Thu Aug 11, 2011 at 09:40:00 PM EST
    think past the next election. Long term planning gave the Republicans  power. To reduce the choice to keeping a President who is barely better than Bush is to lose the longer term battle without a fight.

    agree with that (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by klassicheart on Thu Aug 11, 2011 at 10:12:15 PM EST
    short term thinking cost Democrats big time, especially at the state level, where Obama as President ushered in a host of Republicans

    Absolutely (none / 0) (#83)
    by sj on Fri Aug 12, 2011 at 02:27:03 AM EST
    If I don't think long-term, I'm beside myself with rage and frustration.  Thinking long-term is the only thing that gives me even a glimmer of light at the end of a long, dark, painful tunnel.

    I've said it before, I'll say it again now, and no doubt will repeat it in the future:  a Republican will follow Obama.  Period.  Either in 2012 or 2016.  The earliest I see a glimmer of hope for the working and middle class and especially those below the poverty line is 2016.  And that's only if Obama loses in 2012.

    There are words for what I feel about this: despair, rage, frustration, fear...

    All of them are appropriate.  None of them sound strong enough.


    That's good advice for Barack Obama... (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by Edger on Fri Aug 12, 2011 at 08:35:04 AM EST
    "Things are bad now, but there's no need to make them worse."

    Molly Ivins, darn it we need you now (5.00 / 4) (#152)
    by easilydistracted on Fri Aug 12, 2011 at 10:11:43 PM EST

    Governor Goodhair (none / 0) (#154)
    by CoralGables on Fri Aug 12, 2011 at 10:16:21 PM EST
    would be panic-stricken wondering what would be in Molly's next column.

    Yep, and our departed friend Ann Richards (5.00 / 5) (#155)
    by easilydistracted on Fri Aug 12, 2011 at 10:52:37 PM EST
    would probably have a remark or two, don't ya think? Two Great Women from the State of Texas. Bit off topic but worth saying.

    I thought it odd (none / 0) (#1)
    by Amiss on Thu Aug 11, 2011 at 05:59:21 PM EST
    that during the "Bush era" the state with the highest employment growth was Texas with 40%. Wonder how that happened?

    defense spending, I would guess (none / 0) (#9)
    by ruffian on Thu Aug 11, 2011 at 07:11:36 PM EST
    Oh that's right, I forgot (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by ruffian on Thu Aug 11, 2011 at 07:14:37 PM EST
    Government spending does not create jobs. Never mind.

    And don't just take my word (none / 0) (#25)
    by easilydistracted on Thu Aug 11, 2011 at 07:59:28 PM EST
    as to the meaning of government spending, just read the school text books I've had written.

    Energy industry (none / 0) (#90)
    by jbindc on Fri Aug 12, 2011 at 08:03:18 AM EST
    All I have to say: (none / 0) (#2)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Aug 11, 2011 at 06:05:58 PM EST
    There is a reason to vote against Obama (none / 0) (#3)
    by Bornagaindem on Thu Aug 11, 2011 at 06:25:39 PM EST
    and that is because otherwise social security and medicare will be gutted by him. At least if he is not president the democrats in congress will be able to stop the republicans from doing just that. If obama is president say good bye to the best programs we have. So what are you going to give up Jeralyn, medicare and social security or some supreme court justices for a while?

    If one of the bat $hit crazy repugs get the nomination there will have to be a third party nominee( again not Bloomberg).

    Obama (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by PatHat on Thu Aug 11, 2011 at 07:47:50 PM EST
    is the worst case scenario since he gets automatic approval from a certain % of Democrats even when he wants to pass anti-progressive laws. I have felt all along that the Dems would have more backbone in the minority.

    Democrats? With a backbone? (none / 0) (#36)
    by txpolitico67 on Thu Aug 11, 2011 at 08:46:26 PM EST

    Donald, that was in the wake of 9/11 (none / 0) (#76)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Aug 12, 2011 at 12:40:56 AM EST
    the country was paranoid about them Mooslims, and Bush was wildly popular.  Totally different scenario than today.

    how many ways does Obama have to show you (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by Bornagaindem on Fri Aug 12, 2011 at 12:31:11 PM EST
    that he is willing to gut social security and Medicare before you get it?   Social security has a dedicated fund that will not be bankrupt for many years so it does not contribute to the deficit and yet Obama speaks as though it is part of the problem (of course since he gave and wants to give another payroll tax holiday that may change rapidly). Kool-aide is powerful stuff- just say no.

    Kool-aid? (none / 0) (#118)
    by The Addams Family on Fri Aug 12, 2011 at 12:58:21 PM EST
    for Donald?

    you must not be following Donald's comments - Donald favors his bong

    & here is a recent take on Obama from Donald:

    We've got ourselves a genuine first-term lame duck. I've lost all confidence in his abilities, and if I may say so, I think I've been patient to a fault with him.

    I'm tired of defending this guy. I pray for someone to primary him, as Eugene McCarthy did LBJ in 1968. He really needs to be muscled aside -- otherwise, we're looking at a better-than-even likelihood of a return to Crackerbox Palace next year.

    I agree (none / 0) (#5)
    by andgarden on Thu Aug 11, 2011 at 06:57:57 PM EST
    I'm simply not willing to go from the frying pan to the fire without a fight.

    I'm sure (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 11, 2011 at 07:14:49 PM EST
    you aren't but what happens when the person you vote for waves the white flag in the face of the opposition?

    Very little you can do about it (none / 0) (#13)
    by andgarden on Thu Aug 11, 2011 at 07:17:19 PM EST
    Best bet is to change the party as quickly as possible.

    Do you have a (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by BackFromOhio on Thu Aug 11, 2011 at 08:28:26 PM EST
    grand plan for same?  

    Try it (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by txpolitico67 on Thu Aug 11, 2011 at 08:56:58 PM EST
    and you will be called a racist, a turncoat and all the other lovely names that Hillary supporters (and this blog, for a long while in the primaries) endured.  Obama's got a guaranteed band of apologists.  Good luck.

    Plus the party was infiltrated by Republicans (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by klassicheart on Thu Aug 11, 2011 at 11:20:50 PM EST
    But it is understandable....the left brought us Obama...and now the country will never trust the left...Republicans have been the ones strategizing...look, Karl Rove has respectability again...and the Republicans run the House...sort of amazing given what Bush did to this country in 8 years...

    So something is up....Keep remembering what the left and the so called left media did to Al Gore when he ran against Bush...The left wanted Bradley....told us he was not much different than Bush...and again, in 2008, they picked Obama.  Both Gore and Hillary would have been excellent Democratic Presidents...and who scuttled them?  the left, or those posing as the left.  All with big media support.  The NYT were  big Hillary and Gore haters.  Something to think about.  I recommend DailyHowler.com for what the so called left and their mouthpieces have done in two major elections.


    Actually (5.00 / 3) (#89)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Aug 12, 2011 at 07:11:34 AM EST
    it wasn't the "left" that brought us Obama. It was the Bradley contention, yes, but I would prefer to call it the "latte" liberals. There were plenty on the left like the writers at the Black Agenda Report who were not in love with Obama. Demographics are your guideline on this and BTD did an excellent job of tracking this during the primaries.

    It really doesn't work for most (none / 0) (#39)
    by christinep on Thu Aug 11, 2011 at 09:05:11 PM EST
    Democrats to use wedge issues about Hillary v. Obama...three years later.. I was a strong Hillary supporter; now, I support the President. So does Hillary. It helps noone to relive the past. That is politics...that is life.

    I'm referring to (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by txpolitico67 on Thu Aug 11, 2011 at 09:10:31 PM EST
    the actions of those who opposed Obama.  The poster speaks of changing the party.  That's what I meant.  Try and change the party, i.e., challenging Obama, and see what happens. I'll simplify it for you for 2011.  Call Obama out on his non-Democratic actions.  See what his ardent supporters and big $ donors will do.  There...now do ya get it?

    "It helps no one to relive the past." (5.00 / 7) (#60)
    by Anne on Thu Aug 11, 2011 at 10:36:54 PM EST
    Who is helped by failure to learn from that past?

    I can't speak for anyone else, but I don't much care who Hillary supports - or doesn't support - but apparently that means something to you, or you think it makes a nice wedge to protect Obama from those who don't feel as warm and fuzzy about him as you do.  Just hold Hillary up as a super-duper shield against the Obama criticism.

    Seems a little passive-aggressive to me, but that's nothing new.

    Whatever the politics of this, at the root of it for most of us are things that have real meaning to our present and future lives; sometimes I think that you get so caught up in process and loyalty that you forget that.  

    A classic case of failing to learn the lessons of the past - the collective one, and, more importantly, and in light of the havoc and pain the current policies seem poised to inflict upon a great many people, your own.


    "Relive" differs from failure to learn (none / 0) (#121)
    by christinep on Fri Aug 12, 2011 at 02:35:13 PM EST
    Of course, one learns from the past. Just as wisely tho one does not move by getting stuck in the past...one does not grow by losing self in the past.

    It is a distinction, I realize...an important distinction.


    FYI ... it helps ME to relive the past. (5.00 / 8) (#73)
    by oldpro on Fri Aug 12, 2011 at 12:08:08 AM EST
    We all have different roles to fulfill.  Keep in mind that you and Hillary are still Democrats.  I'm not.

    What that means is, you get to defend your choice and the results and I get to shove it down your throat and complain about the results...and demand that somebody live up to principles they can actually define as Democratic.

    The questions still are:  what kind of country do you want and what kind of politics to deliver it?


    Understand (none / 0) (#123)
    by christinep on Fri Aug 12, 2011 at 02:40:28 PM EST
    Yes, oldpro, we both get to say our piece. Part of that involves my response to Anne above about the difference between learning from the past & getting lost in it. We get to do either, of course...but there is a difference.

    If you want me to take a try at answering your question at the end of your comment I will.


    Well, Christine...it's not a rhetorical (none / 0) (#137)
    by oldpro on Fri Aug 12, 2011 at 06:09:44 PM EST
    question!  Suit yourself re answering.  I'm not the only one who might be interested in your thoughts on such basic questions.  Have a go!

    Anyone incapable of reflection (5.00 / 3) (#84)
    by sj on Fri Aug 12, 2011 at 02:30:45 AM EST
    It helps noone to relive the past.
    is also incapable of learning.



    See comment above (none / 0) (#124)
    by christinep on Fri Aug 12, 2011 at 02:44:38 PM EST
    about the difference between learning from the past & staying put in it.

    It is more than being a stickler about words such as "relive," sj.  In my life, I try to spend time in reflection & prayer at the start of each day...that is a personal statement I know. It says nothing about worth or not; rather, one reflects to continue living and, thankfully, growing. (It is far different to get stuck in the past.)

    Now...I realize we may all have been talking past each other over a word/phrase.  The interesting aspect of it all to me: Why assume rather than ask?


    christine (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by sj on Fri Aug 12, 2011 at 09:32:39 PM EST
    you have a lot to say.  And one of those things you say consistently is to scold others for looking back.  Most of the time when people look back they aren't pining for might have been.  Looking back isn't about Hillary -- it's about the corrupt process that got us here -- and how discussion of it gets tsk-tsk'd.

    This particular comment primary point was about Obama apologists and the reference to the primaries was to show an example not to pine (as I read it anyway).  Your comment on the other hand is consistent with many of your other comments.  Why on earth would I ask you -- as others already have in various ways -- what you mean by that.  

    If you think others are "staying put in it" rather than "looking back", I think you should be the one asking for clarification rather than making assumptions and going right to scolding.


    You have made up your mind, sj (none / 0) (#147)
    by christinep on Fri Aug 12, 2011 at 09:51:05 PM EST
    We are talking about two different things. (As we usually do.  that is fine, but we do tend to talk from very different points of view. I don't scold you anymore than you scold me, btw.)

    "......very different points of view." (5.00 / 0) (#157)
    by NYShooter on Fri Aug 12, 2011 at 11:21:26 PM EST

    So, maybe you could put down the glass of fine chardonnay long enough to give words of solace to those mothers and fathers who can't buy milk.

    Just count your blessings, your admonitions, like Obama's, to "look forward" are pathetic.

    Tell them, Christine, look forward to what?


    This is the kind of bs charge to which I respond (none / 0) (#180)
    by christinep on Sat Aug 13, 2011 at 02:21:05 PM EST
    I do not pretend to know who you are: and, it would be nice for you to do the same with regard to me.  Let me say again: I do count my blessings because what may elude you here is the realization that I come from the background where families (including mine) worried about the next month's rent, whether my sister & me would be placed in foster homes so my dad could find a way to support us three (mother died when my sister was 2 and I was 6), etc. Please, please do not condescend to presume about my background. Y'see, it did workd out for us...my dad worked multiple jobs to support us & gave up normal adult times to be with us as often as he could.  We were blessed. And, you better believe, not everyone is.
    I know that from very real life. That is why my approach is focused on society continually, incrementally progressing...not the whole loaf or my way or the highway. The "I want it all my way or it can all collapse attitude" that some display gets only disappointment and --most importantly--hurt for those truly suffering in society.

    BTW, I don't drink chardonnay usually. Prefer red. What about yourself.


    As a dumb Russian, (none / 0) (#181)
    by NYShooter on Sat Aug 13, 2011 at 08:20:44 PM EST
    what else? vodka, Stolly preferably, with a coke on the side.

    Thanks for asking.


    'Met & acquainted with a number of Russians (none / 0) (#182)
    by christinep on Sat Aug 13, 2011 at 08:45:42 PM EST
    ...not one could be called dumb. Not by a long vodka shot or otherwise.
    Mozhet bweet, mir? Shto govorite? Ladno? (Excuse the faulty transliteration?)

    "...not one could be called dumb." (none / 0) (#187)
    by NYShooter on Sun Aug 14, 2011 at 04:18:14 AM EST
    That, I won't argue, but it's a common, self-deprecating, joke when we're among good friends.

    ...and I consider you a good friend.

    The only one of your "transliterations" I think I got, "Shto govorite?" sounds like, "so, what are you saying?"


    Thank you, NYShooter (none / 0) (#192)
    by christinep on Sun Aug 14, 2011 at 03:51:56 PM EST
    I didn't know how to incorportate cyrillic into TL.  So my attempt was to say: "Mayber, peace? What do you say? Okay?" Your second sentence seems to be a welcome answer. Thanks again.  

    On the transliteration matter: One of my favorite cousins was a Russian professor at a midwestern school...he passed away after a brief battle with melanoma two years ago this week, and the last time I was privileged to see him would have been two years ago today as he lay in bed at his daughter's in Denver when he took the time to reprise a lecture on Dostoyevsky and express a wish to have heard the pianist Olga Kern again. He'd be laughing about how I botched transliteration. Nice reverie.


    When you say "Russian Professor," (none / 0) (#196)
    by NYShooter on Sun Aug 14, 2011 at 08:12:14 PM EST
    do you mean like "Physics Professor," or "Russian born Professor?"

    I'm pretty sure you meant the latter, and so, with that understanding, here's what I know. Note, I said know, not think.....Were he blessedly still alive, and you were to show him a few of the, umm, somewhat, maybe, slightly, energized comments I might have made, along with a comment something like, "look how one of your  nutso, fellow countrymen talk to me!"  you know what his response would've been? First, he would've  broken out in uproarious laughter, with alternate tears streaming and uncontrollable coughing, then, when he finally caught his breath he would've said, "my little czarina, he loves you.

    If he was truly mad he would have not given you the satisfaction of witnessing his anger, He would have spit on his keyboard, cursed at his "собака" (dog) and left to pour himself a double Stol. So, next time your Cossack friend goes an octave too high just picture in your mind the 1960 scene at the U.N. of Krushchev pounding the desk with his shoe. The world still writes of his "blow-up at the U.N. But the fact is that as soon as he stepped into the corridor he broke out into involuntary, seismic laughter.

    And now you know our deepest, darkest "секрет." (secret)


    The incremental progress (none / 0) (#188)
    by MO Blue on Sun Aug 14, 2011 at 08:23:32 AM EST
    under BushII and Obama is going backwards to the pre-New Deal era and not forward. To be more accurate the drive to fund ever increasing military actions, corporate welfare, and additional tax cuts for the uber-wealthy by cutting domestic programs and safety net programs is becoming less incremental and more full speed ahead.

    The Obama administration has awarded the people who have caused many of the financial problems in this country and they have returned to collecting multi million dollar salaries and bonuses. Meanwhile back on Main St. more and more people are jobless and many have lost their homes. So called new job creation is driving wages lower with a vengeance so that the jobs being offered do not provide a living wage by any standard.

    Cuts to the safety net programs are going to be used to significantly lower the tax rates for corporations and the top brackets. Once again back on Main St. funds are cut for food stamps, emergency heating assistance, Commodity Supplemental Food Program which serves predominantly low- income senior and programs like WIC the nutrition program for children and pregnant women.

    I can't understand how you consider this incremental progress.



    MOBlue, I think we can all agree that (none / 0) (#189)
    by Anne on Sun Aug 14, 2011 at 09:14:30 AM EST
    there is a place for incrementalism, but that real progress cannot be made by incrementalism alone, especially when the forces of opposition - and here, those forces are not only on the other side, but on what is supposed to be the same side - aren't wasting their time on small steps - "big" is the only thing they're interested in.

    Two steps forward and one step back doesn't sound so bad, until you realize that the steps are not the same size; when "forward" is measured in inches and "back" is measured in miles, it's some special kind of delusional thinking that believes that incremental forward movement is getting us closer to where we want to go.

    Revolutions don't happen incrementally, and what we have here with Obama and with the GOP is a desire to revolutionize government - to neutralize it as a force for good in people's lives - and while christine glories in incrementalism every time a meager bone is thrown in her direction, and clutches her pearls and tut-tuts at people actually feeling something about the changes that are being forced upon them, the revolution proceeds.

    I'm sure christine's experiences in government are valuable, and I've no doubt she is smart and caring and capable, but until she stops micro-focusing and sees what's happening on a macro level, she is just never going to get it.


    christine IMO suffers from the same disconnect (none / 0) (#191)
    by MO Blue on Sun Aug 14, 2011 at 11:46:28 AM EST
    as J.Hacker describes below:

    Never in my lifetime has the disconnect between Washington and the nation been so great. Americans are crying "jobs, jobs, jobs." Their leaders are saying "deficits, deficits, deficits." Whether we're heading toward another recession, we're facing an ongoing employment and economic crisis that shows no sign of abating. And, unbelievably, folks in Washington -- or at least those with the power to make a difference -- seem willing or resigned to letting the crisis continue. link

    Being totally immune from the consequences of the actions of the Obama administration, she has lost sight of the real human cost of the assault on the ordinary citizens of this country by these policies and cheers joyfully for her team regardless of the suffering.

    I would be willing to bet real money that christine would be loudly condemning these same policies if they were being implemented by McCain. IIRC some of these "great Obama ideas" were actually promoted by McCain and discounted by Obama during the general election.


    I must go buy me some pearls...to clutch (none / 0) (#193)
    by christinep on Sun Aug 14, 2011 at 03:55:05 PM EST
    And then, I must tell my friends about the image nursed by a few here about that society grande dame.  The creation of images must be fun.

    Distortion of what people actually say (none / 0) (#194)
    by MO Blue on Sun Aug 14, 2011 at 05:26:11 PM EST
    is just another one of your little tricks.

    No one called you a society grand dame. What I did do was state the fact and it is a fact, that you are completely immune to Obama's policies that will impact other seniors ability to retire in dignity. No matter how much Obama cuts Medicare you will still have your highly  subsidized  tax payer health care plan at a fraction of the cost of what we will be forced to pay both in premiums and out of pocket expenses. No matter how much Obama cuts SS benefits, you will still have your fully funded government pension. So it is very easy for you to disregard what policies Obama is actually pursuing because if you are wrong and Obama is telling the truth and has every intension to cut the safety nets, it will have absolutely no impact on the quality of your life.  

    You also seem completely oblivious to the impact of the cuts to government programs that Obama has championed has and will continue to have on the lives of real people.  



    Look, I'm not oblivious (none / 0) (#195)
    by christinep on Sun Aug 14, 2011 at 07:57:22 PM EST
    Nor am I the type of groupie that fits in with some. Let me tell you this: I do take exception to the "clutching pearls" motif...its cute, but it is pure c**p & name calling. While you did not say that, one of your compadres did.

    Seriously, if you want to talk, I will. I promise you this: I am not--nor have I ever been--a game player. But, it is getting more than annoying when some here jump quickly for their own games. Yes, we see things through our own looking glass. You do; Anne does; and, I do. Lets talk if you wish...anythime. But, cut the name calling (sample: you must be this that or the other; how can you say this; are you oblivious.) Talk & I'll talk; play games, & I will return the "favor."


    Christine, I am not trying to be cute when (none / 0) (#197)
    by Anne on Sun Aug 14, 2011 at 08:41:50 PM EST
    I use that expression with you; what I am doing is putting into shorthand what I feel you are rhetorically doing when you respond to anyone who brings some emotion to their comments.

    It's as if you feel those who express their emotion or have a different approach than you do are violating some sort of political etiquette - an etiquette that you learned and developed over years of government service; there's just this  undercurrent of disdain for those who just don't know how the real world works.

    And for me, there's a real disconnect between your stories of your youth, and the distance you put between yourself and those whose lives are already hard and those whose lives will become hard as a direct result of the policies of this president and the Democrats who are going to give him permission to do it.  I think of the many people of privilege - Bobby Kennedy, Jr. comes to mind - who, in spite of never having lived lives of deprivation, seem to have more compassion and understanding that someone needs to fight for those lives than you do - and you know what that life of deprivation is like.

    As I expressed in another comment, being satisfied with or grateful for baby steps doesn't work when the other side - or those on the same side - are making huge leaps toward goals that are in conflict with the ones we want.

    We don't just need the incrementalists, christine - we need the bold, imaginative leaders.

    I apologize for offending you, chris; I think - I hope - we want the same things.


    I suspect that--in many ways--we do want (none / 0) (#199)
    by christinep on Sun Aug 14, 2011 at 10:38:00 PM EST
    the same things, the same goals, Anne.

    Please do not assume that my response to certain comments is a negative response to the use of emotions. Sometimes I sigh, as do you...emotions have never frightened me. Emotions are synonymous with living. What I try to point out is what appears--from time to time--as a distinction between hyperbole (trans: the sky is falling, this is the worst evah, this is horrible & a disaster, this is the destruction of all that is the democratic party, etc..)

    Naturally, even "hyperbole" will be in the eye of the beholder. But--seriously--the adjectival "most" "worst" "disastrous" etc. can get to be a bit over the top. This is not a commentary on your comments (tho, once in a great while when opening with something like "Oh for the love of God..." it can be off-putting for further discussion); it is to say that the use of superlatives as a normal way of critique undermines discourse. Because, as I'm guessing you know, there is little to say by way of response.

    To be concerned with "sky-is-falling" statements as a norm is not to censure nor to put down. Rather, it is an attempt to talk...maybe about an issue at a time without calling each other names, casting aspersions of the "how could you" variety. Don't get me wrong: There is a time & place in political give & take for pushes, elbows, & whatnot. That is fair game. But, there is also a time & place (such as TL) for a respectful discussion wherein common ground can be found and disagreements can be had without suggesting something morally or intellectually wrong with the one who would dare disagree.

    As to broader vision vis-a-vis incrementalism: It has always been my intent to stress that there is a place for both. As often said, I tend to deal in incrementalism insofar as the modern day American political system is concerned. In point of fact, the optimum approach would be to define & employ a strategic mix.

    BTW, I would match my sense of compassion with RFK's later developed sense on any day. I admired him as one model of political leader...especially for the time he occupied. But, no need to say that if I am not him--or if someone else is not him--that one is somehow remiss. No need to judge my compassion.... Y'see that is the kind of conclusion we could skip in looking at any individual issue. Optimistically, tho, we may have an opportunity to define a "rules of the game" interaction after a series of positioning & pushbacks on both sides. Worth a try, IMO.


    You do nothing but play games on this (none / 0) (#198)
    by MO Blue on Sun Aug 14, 2011 at 09:49:50 PM EST
    site while you do your little cheer leading routine for Obama. You can't defend your position so you play your little games and then attack me for something that I did not say.

    I take your promises with in the same vein that I take Obama's. They are meaningless. Once again you are nothing but a game player. You continue to defend a position that even your candidate does not defend. How many times does he have to say that he wants to cut the safety net programs for you to look at reality? The harm you do with your little deceptions will not have any effect on your life style but will have major consequences for millions of people in the U.S. How many times does he have to ignore the fact that millions of people are jobless and are losing their homes? How many times does he and his administration have to say that they are selecting people and building policies to prove just how business friendly he is while he refuses to develop policies that benefit the ordinary citizen?

    If I am to blame for what others on this site say about you, you by your own rules you share the blame for all the suffering that your hero Obama inflicts on the citizens of this country.  


    When you run out of put -downs & bluster (none / 0) (#200)
    by christinep on Sun Aug 14, 2011 at 10:43:06 PM EST
    please let me know. I will be ready to talk whenever you are.

    You don't talk about any issue or policy (none / 0) (#201)
    by MO Blue on Sun Aug 14, 2011 at 11:08:50 PM EST
    just employ passive aggressive methods to put down others while pretending not to do so. While you like to play the victim and like Obama pretend you are above the fray, you must notice that many people other than Anne and myself have called you on your condescending and insulting comments.    

    When not engaged in that activity, you spend your time selling Obama even if you have to distort reality to do so (i.e. no the magic of the exchanges did not give you a family health insurance policy for $300 a month). And yes, Obama by his own admission wants to cut benefits for the safety net programs and lower the tax rates for corporations and the top brackets.

    Your little stories are right from Obama's play book on how not to get bogged down on actual policies but focus on broad themes even if they have no relationship with the issue under discussion.

    So if you ever run out of fantasy scenarios, Obama talking points and decide to deal with reality, maybe we will have something to talk about.


    I suppose that's true (5.00 / 2) (#158)
    by sj on Sat Aug 13, 2011 at 12:09:08 AM EST
    I don't scold you anymore than you scold me, btw

    I will always push back when feeling patronized.  And I'll never stop looking at the reasons why we're here.  I have no wish to repeat the same mistakes.  And one of those mistakes was trusting my former party.


    I disagree (none / 0) (#82)
    by klassicheart on Fri Aug 12, 2011 at 02:24:43 AM EST
    Blame must be apportioned to learn a lesson that Dems have a hard time learning.  I too supported Hillary, but ultimately think Bill was and is a better and more passionate fighter.  I don't respect the fact that Hillary didn't keep fighting.  She's too much a part of the Dem party, even though it knifed her.  But she would have been a far better President.  Perhaps she just thought it was worth it to contribute her share internationally...but she goes along too much.

    I wish she'd speak out about the issues...especially when she leaves State.


    She fought as long as a fighter would (none / 0) (#125)
    by christinep on Fri Aug 12, 2011 at 02:47:15 PM EST
    Fighting v. falling on the sword are two different things. She had the political understanding to know when the fight over delegates had ended...and the dignity not to drag her supporters through the grief. I respect her very much for that fight; and, for that difnified conclusion of that phase.

    my one disagreement here (5.00 / 2) (#129)
    by The Addams Family on Fri Aug 12, 2011 at 03:54:46 PM EST
    is that it might have been better for HRC to hold out for a roll-call vote at the 2008 national convention

    the deal that Hillary made with Barack was that her name would be formally placed in nomination, & then - as we saw - Hillary herself led the motion to nominate Barack Obama by acclamation

    the thinking behind the deal was that a roll-call vote would "undermine" Obama, who in fact did not actually have the nomination at that point (no matter how many superdelegates he had at that point) & would not in fact have the nomination until that motion was made at the convention

    but it was no secret that the party was sharply disunited & that Clinton's supporters thought she got a raw deal from the DNC & from the Obama faction on the Rules & Bylaws Committee - i remember your own story about tears in a Polish field

    Hillary's clear loss through the normal "roolz" of a nominating convention would have done something to rectify at least some of that injustice - but the deal was what it was, & now certain chickens will come home to roost in 2012

    of course Hillary did what she thought was right for herself & her own future prospects

    but i don't think it was the right move for her supporters

    i don't think it was the right move for the country, either, & i submit the current record of the Obama administration as evidence for my claim


    Absolutely right, Adams Family! (5.00 / 4) (#138)
    by oldpro on Fri Aug 12, 2011 at 06:34:32 PM EST
    It was at the point of that rollcall disruption that the Democratic Party left me...and vice versa.

    I don't blame Hillary for capitulating after witnessing Jim Clyburn's muscling of Congressman Lewis and the shocking behavior of the party leaders, afraid to run out the rollcall for fear Obama might actually lose the vote even after all their shennigans to ensure his nomination.  Yes...by that time it would have been a disaster, for blacks would have said it was stolen from Obama and abandoned Democrats in droves.  The sense of entitlement was, as is, very strong in that regard and Democrats cannot afford a racial breach of any kind.

    Hillary had no choice, but the Party did and I do.  We only have three things to give...our time, our money and our vote.  Obama got none from me, nor will he or the Party.  Blackmail never did work on me.  It just makes me madder.


    Your right (5.00 / 2) (#142)
    by loveed on Fri Aug 12, 2011 at 08:00:09 PM EST
     Not the right move for her supporters.

     I knew Obama would be a terrible president. No experience in anything.
     What turn me against the dems.? Making Bill  a racist. The degrading treatment of Hillary. Not counting the votes in MI &FLA. The rigged primary.

     Yes I wanted her to take it to the floor.


    Your point is well-taken, Addams Family (none / 0) (#130)
    by christinep on Fri Aug 12, 2011 at 04:40:45 PM EST
    And, being less cautious than typical for me on this matter, I'll say that a fight to the convention was what my first reaction was as well.

    Ultimately, as you note, each candidate can only make his/her decision. My evolved preference for how Hillary Clinton conducted herself comes from my own head v. heart fight.

    In an unusual set of circumstances, I spoke with some of the Colorado delegation that week about what the reaction should be on the floor...the initial uncertainty resolved itself, I think, with Hillary's speech that Tuesday on the floor. My husband & I were fortunate enough to be in the Pepsi Center gallery to watch & hear her speech and the overwhelmingly warm and supportive reaction of those gathered. IMO, you could feel the thankfulness of all sides there because she acted to unify the party.  For people--like myself--who operate within the tent of the broader party, Hillary acted with courage & grace. While the emotions of those months naturally pull us toward making one last stand, political history tends to show that often causes failure for everyone. See, e.g., 1980.

    As to whether it was the right move for the country: You & I will disagree at this time.  But, perhaps, we will talk later about the overall record & the legislation, executive orders, steps, tone, etc. that will one day comprise the record. And, in that mix, we could talk about individual expectations & accomplishments & failures...the reasons behind each...and realtime comparisons.  We can talk about what succeeded, what flopped & why, the risks that worked & those that failed, and those that should have been taken together with opposing views.  IMO, crystal clarity more often is seen in a spiritual sense...but, as for the art of governance & politics, well....


    Easy for Coloradoans to say (5.00 / 3) (#174)
    by Towanda on Sat Aug 13, 2011 at 12:39:44 PM EST
    close to the start of the alphabet, so those delegates got to cast their votes, and their Dem primary voters got to be represented.

    Clearly, you have not talked -- as I have -- with delegates from states closer to the end of the alphabet, whose delegates never got to cast their votes, and whose Dem primary voters never got to be represented, owing to the disgraceful cutoff of the hitherto-sacrosanct roll call.

    That was a bad precedent.  (And look what we got: a bad president.)

    So although you may have wanted to feel warm fuzzies all around you, I have to doubt -- again, based on talking to delegates from other states -- that "thankfulness" was universal there.  

    And I talked to one of the delegates again only recently, and the anger about the roll call still rankles in that state.


    Baloney...blame gets you nothing (none / 0) (#134)
    by christinep on Fri Aug 12, 2011 at 05:30:36 PM EST
    But a constantly squabbling, fractured, segmented party. I used to play that blame game, klassicheart; not anymore.  (Actually, I have a designated person to nudge me when I return to that pattern of blame from time to time.)

    Sometimes blame gets you (5.00 / 5) (#139)
    by oldpro on Fri Aug 12, 2011 at 06:44:05 PM EST
    accountability, Christine.  (See my comment to Adams Family re roll call at convention, etc.)

    I blame individuals and the Democratic Party muscle.  It was their rejection of Hillary (Oh, no...another Clinton and a female at that!) that sent them on the hunt to draft an opponent whom they could manage and elect, once past the nomination...but to get there, they had to engage in shocking and disgusting behavior on many fronts...not the least of which was trying to tag Bill Clinton with racism in Carolina.  Absolutely shameful.


    P.S. Squabbling etc. seems (5.00 / 2) (#140)
    by oldpro on Fri Aug 12, 2011 at 06:45:52 PM EST
    to be working pretty well for the tea party faction!

    What say you to that?


    I say that the Tea Party is at its apex (none / 0) (#144)
    by christinep on Fri Aug 12, 2011 at 09:30:41 PM EST
    ...and that when the heavy duty anger gets out of our collective system, they will be passe.

    Seriously, the anger syndrome is nothing new in societies nor in each of us. Usually, that phase passes after it exhausts us. Again, I've never experienced that blame-game gets anything but temporary relief. Nothing wrong with that...but, it isn't lasting

    Heck...I really don't know; neither does anyone else.  But what I have seen: The extreme emotions wear out, fairly quickly at that. Less satisfying in the long term than a gauzy cotton candy on the other end. This eventually comes down to personal philosophy: My outlook has moved more toward moving through the problem...not necessarily in opposition to it but with & through it. In an almost oriental way (strange for me the slav), moving like a reed with the onrushing water rather than eroding with the resistance of a rock.

    Timing is what I say.  Timing.


    Interesting that you see yourself as the (5.00 / 3) (#149)
    by Anne on Fri Aug 12, 2011 at 09:58:22 PM EST
    reed, instead of the water.

    I don't see anger - focused and specific - as inhibiting progress, but impelling it, fueling it, keeping it moving.

    Maybe someday you will discover what it is about emotion that so frightens you, but in the meantime, I can tell you that the way you belittle and condescend to the arguments of anyone who brings honest emotion to the discussion has grown old.


    I wish the 'left' (5.00 / 3) (#169)
    by BackFromOhio on Sat Aug 13, 2011 at 09:16:42 AM EST
    would demonstrate its anger as it did in the 1960s & 1970s; there is a lot at stake; too many people out of work, unable to afford health care, healthy food or any food; and too many are unable to retire.  We have been asked to pay to bail out the financial institutions that caused a crisis without calling them to account, to pay for wars of questionable value to the nation, and to allow a Congressional 'committee' to determine budget cuts.  

    If you will recall (none / 0) (#179)
    by christinep on Sat Aug 13, 2011 at 02:01:03 PM EST
    there were some clear focal points to channel that anger in the 60s and in the 70s. What I remember as a galvanizing force in the 60s was a war that grew in intensity & sparked increasing opposition during a time when young men were being drafted (and in a war that would eventually kill over 50,000 Americans.) The line became very clear: Get out of Vietnam or continue escalating while drafting more & more young men. That had a way of focusing anger directly with a specific aim/goal for the most part.

    The focus, the clear objective, the directedness of a tangential outcome can make a difference. (Another example of those times & in the 70s that ensued: Women's rights--with a particular focus on hiring, equal pay, & reproductive rights--the ERA also was a backdrop--but, the goal was fairly well defined.) Take a look at now & compare.  There is a lot of anger for a lot of justifiable reasons as well. But, a major difference is the lack of clear, coherent, defined aims. In fact, groups are segmented on the right & on the left with multiple, multiple ends...a number of which pull in very different directions. IMO, it is difficult to channel anger in purposive way if everyone moves to different drummers. Individualism is great & symbolic of this country; yet, if one looks at the history of movements, the more successful ones tend to unite behind clear and rather concrete purpose(s) to motivate others.

    Anne, among others, occasionally jabs at me as condescending or unemotional. She is entitled--as we all are--to believe what she wants. My point throughout (and especially here) is to say that getting lost in one's anger by way of the "I'm so angry I could spit" or "Everything is going to wherever in a handbasket and nobody cares (or only me & whoever agrees with me)" might sound good, might be cathartic, might rally for the day, but.... It takes focused anger that is turned to disciplined strategy & that gets out of its own circle of repetition to achieve political/movement goals. The challenge, it seems, is to define with specificity & clarity particular aims. Channeled, purposive anger is different than what appears to be diffused, undifferentiated anger. The latter usually goes in circles.


    In the philosophical context (none / 0) (#150)
    by christinep on Fri Aug 12, 2011 at 10:10:03 PM EST
    the water is viewed as life and life's forces.

    Almost forgot Anne (none / 0) (#153)
    by christinep on Fri Aug 12, 2011 at 10:13:36 PM EST
    Emotion is me; it is always me...that doesn't necessarily equate with being in thrall with anger.

    "In thrall with anger?" (5.00 / 3) (#170)
    by Anne on Sat Aug 13, 2011 at 09:45:41 AM EST
    Wow...so, your emotion is the right kind, and the emotion that comes through here in the comments of others is evidence that they are in thrall with anger?

    Kind of inspires me to inquire, who the hell do you think you are, christine?

    It may come as a shock to your sensibilities, but for many here, what we express is in large part about defining the problems, honing the arguments and arming ourselves with the ones that make the most sense for our interaction with the larger world that exists outside the blogosphere.  

    From what people have shared about their own lives - and even if we didn't know as much as has been shared here - it's clear this is not a group of foaming-at-the-mouth crazies who have trouble making coherent and convincing arguments.  This is a well-educated, accomplished, intelligent, group of people who would not be here if they didn't care deeply - deeply - about things that have the power to affect their everyday lives, and determine what kind of country this will be.

    Every time you use other people's emotions against them, or cast yourself as having the only truly acceptable way of expressing them, I am reminded of the always-insulting, condescending and sexist question, "oh, is it that time of the month?"  Used by men for, probably, since time began for the express purpose of negating whatever was being said.

    It's been my experience that people who take that kind of approach - using someone else's emotion against them - have no other way to counter the argument, so they try to make it about the person expressing it.


    Anne: You ask "who the hell do" (none / 0) (#178)
    by christinep on Sat Aug 13, 2011 at 01:38:41 PM EST
    I think that I am. Fascinating.

    The question--coming how & when it does is funny. My response: I'm not angry. That is part of what I am. (BTW, it appears that you are baiting. Have at it.)


    You're young (5.00 / 2) (#146)
    by sj on Fri Aug 12, 2011 at 09:40:11 PM EST
    go for it.

    Best bet is to change the party as quickly as possible.

    I've already spent years on that project -- only to have it undone in three.


    *Sigh* (5.00 / 1) (#183)
    by Zorba on Sat Aug 13, 2011 at 09:54:24 PM EST
    So have I, sj, so have I.  I have been working on changing the Democratic Party (and the country) for so many years, I can hardly keep track.  Anti-war, pro-civil rights, pro-feminism, pro-gay rights.  And on and on.  I'm tired- very, very tired, and I'm about to give up, because the party seems to have left me, and I don't know where else to go or how else to try to change it, if it's even possible.  

    I'm tired, too (none / 0) (#186)
    by sj on Sun Aug 14, 2011 at 03:55:32 AM EST
    Supreme Court nominations (none / 0) (#6)
    by KeysDan on Thu Aug 11, 2011 at 07:01:15 PM EST
    may not necessarily turn out as we would like or expect.  If a replacement was needed for Justice Ginsberg or Justice Breyer we would likely get a nominee such as Sotomayor or Kagan (confirmation would be more difficult than in these cases, of course, if the senate changes hands).  But, if the replacement was for Scalia, Kennedy or Thomas, it is not beyond the realm of possibility that President Obama would reach out in his bipartisan way to keep the "balance"--someone in tune with the Federalist Society, for example.  However, it is a dilemna--a Perry/Bachman ticket would certainly be insane,, although it would be interesting to watch some  righty religious heads explode if those crusted rumors of Perry and fresher ones of Dr. Bachmann re-emerge.

    By the same token, "it is not beyond the (none / 0) (#15)
    by christinep on Thu Aug 11, 2011 at 07:19:28 PM EST
    realm of possibility that Preaident Obama" would appoint someone at least similar to Sotomayor or Kagan. There is no evidence to suggest otherwise.

    Seriously, think it through, KeysDan. Your comments, IMO--particularly in the area of environmental issues--have been extremely helpful & observant (& environmental.)  My advice: Don't let the "I'm so angry I'll cut off my nose to spite my face" sentiment get in the way of the differences. Obama may not be what you like...but, whether it is the Supreme Court or just about any specific area you care to debate, there is a difference. A very large difference. (All I would ask is that you think about it. Continue to push, to chastise, to criticize, to speak in full force of course...yet, think about the temptation of the "I'm so pi**d & I'm so disappointed & I'm so furious" it can all go to he*.  It is very tough from where you are. I really do know that...We've been there.


    Chris. (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by KeysDan on Thu Aug 11, 2011 at 08:00:45 PM EST
    Thank you for your kind remarks.  I do try to cast my  observations and opinions on the basis of policies that I feel are right and not necessarily those that directly apply to me, such as women's right to chose, civil rights for people of color, and protection of Medicaid for the poor and sick.   In that vein, I find President Obama to have missed opportunities to formulate progressive policies and to provide the kind of leadership that the country so desperately needs at this critical time.  My concerns for President Obama go beyond disappointment, although I am disappointed.  His words, at one time were great, his actions less. We cut him slack knowing the mess he inherited.  But, now even his words have faltered and confidence in his taking the country on the right track has eroded.   The best thing in favor of his re-election is that the others are worse.  Maybe, he can reclaim himself with a modification of his 2008 slogan of hope and change to :  "Hope He Will Change"

    Okay...I'll back off for now (none / 0) (#32)
    by christinep on Thu Aug 11, 2011 at 08:38:13 PM EST
    KeysDan: As to "missed opportunities," I hear you. I hear you in my gut...because we all have missed those chances in our lives. Look, I don't know where you are really coming from. But, let us assume that your intention is honorable & liberal.  If that is so, let us really take a look at the facts on the ground. And, that really raises the question: "Are you willing to burn down the barn to kill the rat" as they say in the old midwestern adage? Are we talking the realities of women, the environment, Blacks & Hispanices & other minorities, the elderly & those who were consigned before to no health care because of their "preexisting conditions?"  You get the drift.... Or--and I won't be insulted if you are honest--are we talking about theoretical philosophy or something other than the day-to-day life that those who couldn't afford philosophy classes might not admire?  

    Anyway...there will be lots of time to revisit expectations from either party.


    You need not assume anything other (5.00 / 9) (#55)
    by KeysDan on Thu Aug 11, 2011 at 10:15:56 PM EST
    than what I write.  If you do not agree or feel I am wrong, just say so--I will pause, think about it, and re-assess if convinced.  That is the beauty of Talk Left.  And, similarly, I appreciate your willingness not to be insulted by honesty. Along those lines, I hope you will not find it insulting that I find your comment to be condescending and your gratuitous assumption of my being honorable to be insulting.

    Then consider it may not be missed opportunities (none / 0) (#65)
    by klassicheart on Thu Aug 11, 2011 at 11:35:55 PM EST
    but a complete and total failure of leadership...and that can be equally dangerous...the world is a far more dangerous place because Obama is also a disaster on foreign policy.  He is perceived as weak and in fact, is weak...or rather, indecisive.  He has no cohesive foreign policy let alone core values. Nor does he appear to have judgment.  But he seems to think otherwise...after all, he got a Nobel peace prize before he accomplished anything...Leadership is critical at this point in time.  As is judgment, focus and vision.  Obama is a fool...and too many dangerous dictators see that....Look at what  Syria
    is doing in full view...

    What better narrative do the Republicans have other than Obama?  And how is it possible that Obama has not put the focus on their bad ideas?  There is something very wrong here.


    The "angry left" trope gets tiresome (5.00 / 4) (#167)
    by lambert on Sat Aug 13, 2011 at 06:11:04 AM EST
    One of the lessons of 2008 -- which it's important to remember, unless repeating old patterns is a goal -- was how easily the Obama supporters marginalized their opponents by depicting them as motivated solely by emotion -- it's easy to infantilize somebody seeking justice by calling them angry, for example.

    My comment is a serious one. (none / 0) (#28)
    by KeysDan on Thu Aug 11, 2011 at 08:18:41 PM EST
    If you disagree, that is fine with me.  But please leave my imagination to me.  I do not view President Obama in a pollyanna way.  He will do what  he needs to do. Even if he does nominate a progressive to the Court he will fight only so much (cf. Liu, Goodwin).  After that, all bets would be off--a bipartisan nominee (i.e, one acceptable to the Republicans, and not so much to liberals) is what we could get. Stay safe and head for high ground--after all tsunamis do happen.

    Well, I do know the result. (5.00 / 6) (#58)
    by KeysDan on Thu Aug 11, 2011 at 10:30:43 PM EST
    Are you just fine with  President Obama appointing David Barlow, a righty Republican to be US Attorney in Utah.  Barlow is general counsel to Mike Lee, the Tea Party Senator from Utah.   This appointment was to the chagrin, if not horror, of Utah Democrats.  To me, that is a harbinger.  Governor Brown nominated him to the California Supreme Court, a sign of leadership in the face of competing interests.

    Great example KeysDan (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by klassicheart on Thu Aug 11, 2011 at 11:46:52 PM EST
    He has appointed many Republican US Attorneys.  There is something very wrong with what is going on...and too many people who pushed Obama on us want to justify their stupidity or erase the facts....because there was never any evidence that Obama deserved to be nominated for his accomplishments or leadership.  It's shocking how easily conned people are. And those of us who gave him the benefit of the doubt in the general, were also conned. Labor was sure conned.  By the way, did Obama head over to Wisconsin to help with that recall election? I hear it was close.  

    No, he's still looking (5.00 / 1) (#176)
    by Towanda on Sat Aug 13, 2011 at 12:47:20 PM EST
    for those "comfortable shoes."

    You do raise an interesting point about the Wisconsin recalls that proves to be quite revealing.  I've been reading a lot of the debate by Wisconsinites on DKos and on local liberal blogs in Wisconsin as to whether Obama ought to have kept his promise, put on those shoes, and come to the state.

    The consensus of his supporters -- repeat, his supporters! -- is that his doing so only would have hurt the Dem candidates, owing to Obama's disapproval ratings in the state, a state whose primary was so crucial to him.

    In sum, Obama is seen as poison in Wisconsin now.

    That does not bode well for 2012 for him, does it?


    It's also possible he knows the outcome ahead (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by klassicheart on Fri Aug 12, 2011 at 12:13:23 AM EST
    of time...and the nomination is just a ruse to give breadcombs to his trusting and stupid "base."  Elizabeth Warren would have been the single best appointment in the entire Obama Presidency....but it was never going to happen.  Not even a recess appointment, which should tell you something.  This was a set up.

    It's also not beyond the realm ... (none / 0) (#91)
    by jbindc on Fri Aug 12, 2011 at 08:12:34 AM EST
    That no Supreme Court openings will happen.

    To rephrase a Colbert joke (none / 0) (#10)
    by ruffian on Thu Aug 11, 2011 at 07:13:15 PM EST
    One of these two guys could be our next president. And the other one is Rick Perry.

    Rick Perry will not be the nominee (none / 0) (#16)
    by loveed on Thu Aug 11, 2011 at 07:20:35 PM EST
    Even republican will realize he's GWB all over again. I still think it will be Huntsman.

     This country cannot afford another 4yrs. of Obama. This is a terrible president. He is in way over his head. And he is a democrat. The whole party sucks.

     We have time to find a good president. The republican primaries are starting. If they pick someone unacceptable, find a good independent candidate. Don't take this lying down. It's time to take our country back.

     You might not like the tea party, but you cannot deny the power they have. In such a short time they have changed the whole conversation in washington.

     Is this the change we've been looking for?

    I have no idea what you are talking about. (none / 0) (#17)
    by christinep on Thu Aug 11, 2011 at 07:22:31 PM EST
    Huntsman? My goodness.

    I think he's in a good position (none / 0) (#35)
    by loveed on Thu Aug 11, 2011 at 08:45:58 PM EST
    While the media is beating up all the front runners. No one is over 25%. He's quietly campaigning ,NH,SC,Fla.

     Perry is Carl Roves guy. The old establishment. The repub. are tired of Rove type politics. There concerned with the direction of the country.
     This is why there is a tea party. The tea party is driving the republican  and democrat party crazy.

      He entered the race April 30. He raised 4mil.Pawlenty 4.5mil Romney 14mil.Normal people start paying attention after Labor Day.Believe me people will pay close attention to what the candidate position are on the issues. What is the issue? The same as 3yrs ago JOBS.

     Huntsman has the best resume. His record in Utah is outstanding. He's conservative enough. Believes in civil unions.

     Give him time.


    "Believes in civil unions" (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by shoephone on Thu Aug 11, 2011 at 09:20:39 PM EST
    Yeah, well, unfortunately,

    Doesn't believe in a woman's right to reproductive choice.

    Would this be an inopportune time to mention that he is also another billionaire Republican who earned his money the old-fashioned way: by getting it from his billionaire daddy?


    Tea Party is on a power trip (none / 0) (#56)
    by mmc9431 on Thu Aug 11, 2011 at 10:23:10 PM EST
    I can't see them going along with anyone that doesn't dance to their tune.

    This may prove to be Obama's salvation.


    Huntsman is running for 2016 (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by MKS on Fri Aug 12, 2011 at 10:52:11 AM EST
    Just paying his dues now.....

    He did take a shot at Perry's prayer event.....

    Huntsman is running on the hope Obama wins again and a "moderate" like him will be in line in 2016 for the nomination.


    Huntsman would be good (none / 0) (#67)
    by klassicheart on Thu Aug 11, 2011 at 11:51:40 PM EST
    But he is Mormon and does not come across as strong.  Big liabilities.  I'd take Huntsman over Obama any day...

    What, exactly, would Huntsman be (5.00 / 2) (#98)
    by Anne on Fri Aug 12, 2011 at 09:49:00 AM EST
    "good" for?  I can't really think of anything, but that's just me.

    The thing is, big money will be making the choice for us, will determine who will be competing for the presidency, and it all comes down to whether we want to invest our votes in either of the choices offered.

    Me - I don't think anyone currently in the mix is worthy of my vote, and I sure wouldn't invest a penny in any of them, either - suddenly, every penny seems precious.  I intend to treat my vote the same way.  


    Gov Ad Infinitum (none / 0) (#24)
    by easilydistracted on Thu Aug 11, 2011 at 07:55:03 PM EST
    is a slick politician, and ruthless even when it comes to his own -- remember the Kay Bailey H. bushwhacking? I'm saying don't underestimate him.  

    I agree (none / 0) (#68)
    by klassicheart on Thu Aug 11, 2011 at 11:53:05 PM EST
    Perry should not be underestimated...

    But then there is the brilliant and subversive (none / 0) (#85)
    by klassicheart on Fri Aug 12, 2011 at 02:33:00 AM EST
    Stephen Colbert...the real thing...Has anyone seen his new super pac ad for Parry in Iowa?  Sublime.

    No black voice on the court (none / 0) (#22)
    by loveed on Thu Aug 11, 2011 at 07:41:34 PM EST
    Clarance will not talk.
     Obama had two picks. Why no black woman? His biggest supporters.

    It would be great, indeed (none / 0) (#37)
    by christinep on Thu Aug 11, 2011 at 08:48:05 PM EST
    to witness the naming of a black woman to the Supreme Court. Perhayps, President Obama will be the first President to have the honor to accomplish that deed.  Meanwhile, the naming of Sotomayor & Kagan is nothing to sneeze at (Frankly, in terms of transformative background, the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor caused me to cry with thanks for our country.)

    Yeah... (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by kdog on Fri Aug 12, 2011 at 09:28:47 AM EST
    the rendering of warrant requirements de-factor obsolete is such a shining accomplishment of the high court w/ Obama apointees.

    Gotta tell ya folks, "Supreme Court! Supreme Court!" isn't a good selling point when Brand D appointments don't cherish individual liberty any more than the Brand R ones do.  No court overturns Roe v Wade anyway...no chance.    


    I think there both great (none / 0) (#131)
    by loveed on Fri Aug 12, 2011 at 04:46:45 PM EST
    Black women were his biggest supporters. No black women in the running.
     I like Cheryl Mills.

    Can we fast forward (none / 0) (#47)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Aug 11, 2011 at 09:26:45 PM EST
    To where a joker says "vote perry" so we can get to the laughs!

    If Obama was serious about the Supreme Court (none / 0) (#48)
    by scribe on Thu Aug 11, 2011 at 09:31:24 PM EST
    Clarence Thomas would be under indictment right now.

    If even half of what he's alleged to have done, relative to the hundreds of thousands of dollars he forgot about on his disclosure forms, is true, it's orders of magnitude worse than what John Edwards is alleged to have done.

    Very insightful remark about Thomas (none / 0) (#70)
    by klassicheart on Thu Aug 11, 2011 at 11:58:34 PM EST
    You notice we don't hear any on the left talking about this....

    Comparing Thomas' misdeeds to John Edwards' (none / 0) (#72)
    by klassicheart on Fri Aug 12, 2011 at 12:05:22 AM EST
    is important and necessary in understanding the venality of this President.  Again, the left never talks about any of this.  Why is a Democratic President pursuing criminal charges against another Democrat and nominating Republican U.S. Attorneys and not a peep from the left? Because the media doesn't talk about it much...let alone analyze it.

    Ah...you might want to check laws & (none / 0) (#135)
    by christinep on Fri Aug 12, 2011 at 05:33:18 PM EST
    separation of power...the basics about who has authority to impeach, etc.

    Imagine if Ginsberg did what Thomas did (none / 0) (#71)
    by klassicheart on Fri Aug 12, 2011 at 12:00:07 AM EST

    The word you are looking for is (none / 0) (#87)
    by NYShooter on Fri Aug 12, 2011 at 03:47:23 AM EST

    The difference between "despair, rage, frustration, fear," and ...."Dread," is that those four still hold out a tiny element of "hope." With "Dread," there is no hope.

    A soldier going into battle feels "fear."

    A prisoner strapped into that gurney feels "Dread."

    Surely some on the left will try (none / 0) (#93)
    by vicndabx on Fri Aug 12, 2011 at 08:59:18 AM EST
    Things are bad now, but there's no need to make them worse

    Surely the corporate toadies (5.00 / 3) (#95)
    by MO Blue on Fri Aug 12, 2011 at 09:04:12 AM EST
    will continue to support stealing from the poor and the middle class to enrich themselves and then claim that the "left" forced them to do so.

    Lol (5.00 / 3) (#96)
    by lilburro on Fri Aug 12, 2011 at 09:17:28 AM EST
    sorry?  Exactly what is the left going to do to make things worse?  

    Burden Obama with online criticism?


    lol. that is funny. (5.00 / 1) (#184)
    by Mr Natural on Sun Aug 14, 2011 at 12:08:57 AM EST
    ♫ when danger rears its ugly head, we lefties bravely blog, abed...

    Perry/Bachmann (none / 0) (#102)
    by MKS on Fri Aug 12, 2011 at 09:59:52 AM EST

    That seems likely.  

    Bachmann (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by jbindc on Fri Aug 12, 2011 at 10:29:27 AM EST
    Will not be on the ticket in any form.  She's too wack a doodle to win moderate or independent votes.  Just as the left wing of the Democratic Party cannot by itself elect a president, neither can the crazy faction of the Republican Party.

    I have been saying for a year now that Romney will be the nominee.  I think the VP slot is up for grabs - Pawlenty maybe, if he doesn't implode - but my guess is it will be someone not on the POTUS sweepstakes scene right now.  Jeb Bush?


    Being whacked did not prevent (none / 0) (#107)
    by MKS on Fri Aug 12, 2011 at 10:32:59 AM EST
    Palin from being on the ticket.

    Bachmann is smarter and more articulate....She just makes up facts...but so what is new with conservatives.


    Palin (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by jbindc on Fri Aug 12, 2011 at 10:38:59 AM EST
    Was a Hail Mary pass and a way to capitalize on the women's vote that was perceived to be lost by the whole Hillary debacle.  Palin was also a governor - you may disagree with her policy, but she at least had experience running a state.  Bachmann's listed achievement was the Freedom of Choice for Lightbulbs Act.

    The Republicans want to win - they are not going to put someone on the ticket who will turn moderates and independents away in droves.


    It all depends (none / 0) (#115)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Aug 12, 2011 at 12:12:27 PM EST
    on whether the GOP primary voters are going to go along with what the "elite" tell them to do or not. Their history tends to justify what you are saying but there is a chance that this time they aren't going to vote for who they are told to vote for.

    Palin wasn't wacked (none / 0) (#160)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Aug 13, 2011 at 12:47:34 AM EST
    at the time.  She's gone nutso since then, but her record in Alaska was pretty mainstream GOP.

    The crazy faction runs the party (none / 0) (#113)
    by Lacey on Fri Aug 12, 2011 at 11:12:05 AM EST
    Your analysis makes sense if this was four years ago. But today's Republican Party is run and controlled by the crazies. And they will not allow a "moderate" like Romney to be the nominee.

    The crazies (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by jbindc on Fri Aug 12, 2011 at 12:35:07 PM EST
    Are not in the top spots in the party.

    Primary results can be hampered with, arms can be twisted, deals can be made.

    If they smell blood in the water, i.e. if the economy is just as bad or worse than it is now, that's the ball game.  They will put up someone like a Romney who can hold his own, or even best, Obama on paper, on the stump, in a debate.  Obama will be a one-termer because people vote with their pocketbook.

    If the economy improves, there isn't a candidate out there that would beat Obama.


    If things are no better or worse ... (none / 0) (#127)
    by Yman on Fri Aug 12, 2011 at 03:27:14 PM EST
    If they smell blood in the water, i.e. if the economy is just as bad or worse than it is now, that's the ball game.  They will put up someone like a Romney who can hold his own, or even best, Obama on paper, on the stump, in a debate.  Obama will be a one-termer because people vote with their pocketbook.

    ... I would conclude just the opposite.  I would think in that environment, they'd be able to run virtually anyone against Obama and win, making it likely that they'll move harder right and nominate a TP candidate like Bachman.  OTOH, if things are flat or improving slightly, they may want to grab more of the moderate and/or independent voters.


    And, (none / 0) (#141)
    by lentinel on Fri Aug 12, 2011 at 07:48:52 PM EST
    who runs todays Democratic Party?

    They are just as nutty and just as dangerous.


    I just remembered (none / 0) (#104)
    by lilburro on Fri Aug 12, 2011 at 10:13:39 AM EST
    all Perry's batsh*t comments over the past few years (seceding from the Union, etc.).  Hopefully he'll be easier to beat than I think.  I still think Romney is the scariest.

    Romney won the debate last night (none / 0) (#106)
    by MKS on Fri Aug 12, 2011 at 10:30:09 AM EST
    Gingrich was angry and petulant which may get him some attention now, but it shows he lacks the temperament to be President.

    Romney was calm, clear and effective.

    He has a good answer on his downsizing ways while at Bain Capital:  some companies worked, some did not, but on the whole he created a large increase in net jobs.....

    Regardless of what the impression is now, Romney is very tied into the Mormon heirarchy in Salt Lake.....Why else would he be asked to head the Salk Lake Olympics?

    He should be asked a series of questions about the White Horse Prophecy.


    Bachmann not likely (none / 0) (#126)
    by brodie on Fri Aug 12, 2011 at 03:20:55 PM EST
    VP. Too much evokes the controversial Palin pick.

    I see Perry/Romney, or Austin-Boston.


    Perry/Rubio (none / 0) (#148)
    by MKS on Fri Aug 12, 2011 at 09:53:19 PM EST
    What is worse? (none / 0) (#119)
    by BobTinKY on Fri Aug 12, 2011 at 01:25:47 PM EST
    Perry or Romney for four disastrous years 2012-16 taking the blame for failure of supply side economics to solve the current crisis, or Obama with equally bad supply side economics and blame for Dems followed by Perry, Romney or Jeb or, hard to imagine, worse for 2016-24?  In 2012, we are basically elected who is to be our next Herbert Hoover or Jimmy Carter.

    I am not so sure.  We'll get just as bad SCOTUS picks and crime policies in 2016-24 PLUS four years 2012-16 of failures with which Dems will be associated for the next generation a la Jimmy Carter.  Unlike OBama, the GOP is not at all hesitant to blame and demonize their Dem predecessors & in the process demonize all policies with which those predecessors are associated.

    Obama has already played Hoover's role (none / 0) (#185)
    by Mr Natural on Sun Aug 14, 2011 at 12:13:19 AM EST
    Republicans deliberately threw the 2008 election.

    agree with your first statement (none / 0) (#190)
    by The Addams Family on Sun Aug 14, 2011 at 10:54:05 AM EST
    Obama has already played Hoover's role

    as for this:

    Republicans deliberately threw the 2008 election.

    no, they didn't - until Lehman Bros collapsed, McCain was beginning to lead

    but before that, with the GOP "brand" in tatters, the perception was that any Democrat was going to win in 2008 - that's one reason why the DNC handed the ball to a rookie just called up from the minors


    Perry upsets (none / 0) (#122)
    by brodie on Fri Aug 12, 2011 at 02:36:57 PM EST
    Romney for the nom.

    Perry seen as too extreme too fundie and secessionist in the general. Obama like Abe in 1864 comes back from certain electoral doom to win reelection

    Every single (none / 0) (#136)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri Aug 12, 2011 at 05:54:06 PM EST
    Republican told us they would agree to no compromise last night.

    So now what? That is where we are and have been for a while. So what is proposed.  What magical liberal dust makes that mentality vanish.

    Shorter: what is Obama supposed to do now. Realistically. Not "he should yell louder" because the public seems to get the issues.

    What miracles do we really expect starting today?

    Are you kidding me? (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by LatinDem on Fri Aug 12, 2011 at 10:11:37 PM EST
    Obama is he!!bent on making the rich richer, and his "compromises" are likely what was in the pike long before we got snookered into electing him. Our president is either a stealth Republican or a chicken. I personally don't believe he's that incompetent, so he's either complicit in the destruction of the middle class, or he's terrified of something.

    If he truly cared about the common American, he'd announce that every policy coming out of his administration from here forward would support the middle and working classes, period. Nothing more and nothing less. Then he would ask for our help to "make it so." Millions of Americans would take to the streets to demand that Congress cooperate with our President who is finally the leader we thought we elected.

    Who cares what the Republican candidates say. If Obama would just lead the movement he started, Republicans would be a non-issue. Racists and neurotic religious freaks be d@mned; they are nothing compared to the problem with have with Obama helping the very people who are destroying our nation. Even the Tea Partiers would back him if he'd only just lead us out of this mess instead of making things worse. There are probably from 50 to 100 million Americans who would support him and vote for him in 2012 if he dedicated the next year to redirecting all public moneys into programs that put us back to work and ensured that NONE of that money was used for corporate welfare or war profiteering.

    People want him to succeed. We've got his back, but only if he's not cheating us. A hundred million Americans would unite to change our country, if Obama would only LEAD.


    We expect no miracles. (5.00 / 3) (#156)
    by nycstray on Fri Aug 12, 2011 at 11:04:20 PM EST
    Those of us on the left living in the real world that is.

    You should be happy though. Your man Obama will get his "Grand Bargain", and to H*ll with the rest of us. Oh "historic" days . . .


    The "ZOMG!! The Court!!!" talking point (none / 0) (#161)
    by lambert on Sat Aug 13, 2011 at 05:50:47 AM EST
    ... is rather remote from the experience of ordinary Americans, especially those without work, or who have lost their homes, or who think that being forced buy junk insurance they can't afford or face IRS enforcement may not be the best idea.

    But regardless, since you'll vote for the Ds anyhow, you've surrendered all leverage. So the point of this post would be?