Considering what's at stake, can we put the Obama criticisms on hold until after the election?

[fried eggs]

If we can agree that having Rmoney&Ryan picking the next 3 Supreme Court justices would be a disaster, I think we should have a temporary truce when it comes to attacking Obama.

Those who are inclined to do so, should criticize/attack him relentlessly after he's elected.

Please, for the sake of women's rights. For the sake of social security. For the sake of health care.

States Enact Record Number of Abortion Restrictions in 2011

January 5, 2012

By almost any measure, issues related to reproductive health and rights at the state level received unprecedented attention in 2011. In the 50 states combined, legislators introduced more than 1,100 reproductive health and rights-related provisions, a sharp increase from the 950 introduced in 2010. By year’s end, 135 of these provisions had been enacted in 36 states, an increase from the 89 enacted in 2010 and the 77 enacted in 2009. (Note: This analysis refers to reproductive health and rights-related “provisions,” rather than bills or laws, since bills introduced and eventually enacted in the states contain multiple relevant provisions.)
Fully 68% of these new provisions—92 in 24 states—-restrict access to abortion services, a striking increase from last year, when 26% of new provisions restricted abortion. The 92 new abortion restrictions enacted in 2011 shattered the previous record of 34 adopted in 2005.

http://www.guttmacher.org/media/inthenews/2012/01/05/endofyear.html/

------------

This doesn't include the bills from 2012!

[gopiscrap]

1. I agree let's hold it til after the election!

[leveymg]

2. Do you really think anyone who hasn't already made up their minds reads DU?

Or, that anyone who would otherwise vote for Obama won't because of something they read here?

Give us a break, please. Criticism is always welcome. Go ahead, criticize me, if you like . . .

[MineralMan]

6. Lots of people who haven't made up their minds read DU.

Every thread title on DU gets top listings on Google searches. People click through and read threads who are not DUers and who will never be DUers.

If you don't believe me, do some searches based on thread titles. Google has them just minutes after they are posted.

For example, Google Obama criticisms on hold. This thread has the number one position already.

[leveymg]

12. I know that Google picks up threads here.

Lots of my stuff has made and stayed at Google #1. But, this is essentially a discussion board for activists, even during elections.

Part of the reason why others bother to read it is because there is a lot of candid, lively, and in many cases well-informed dialogue and information here. Why change when you've got something good?

BTW: I trust that those who really have something to say also have the good judgement to know when there may be a better time to say it, but no one should intentionally self-censor just because we're 8 weeks from Election Day. Nobody has the right to tell others to stifle themselves, or what they can talk about - I think that's Rule #1 here.

[MineralMan]

13. Of course people can write what they want here,

up to a point. Some people posting here may have made up their minds not to vote for Obama, too. If they're smart, they don't say so directly. There are limits on DU. What those limits are, exactly, is a little hard to pin down, so threads like this get started.

[leveymg]

14. "I know it when I see it"

I think that's a good guide by Justice Potter Stewart to most on-screen activity.

[fried eggs]

39. Our issue is voter turnout

This country is overwhelmingly left-leaning but the problem is, most people on the left do not vote. Even when registered, they stay home. When they come to sites like this and see a bunch of negative things, it confirms their misguided belief that voting is pointless.

If republicans win, they could possibly control all 3 branches of government. The tea party will have the keys. We cannot risk that. WE CANNOT RISK THAT.

[Pab Sungenis]

44. And who would the left vote for?

Obama is not a left candidate. His policies are to the right of Clinton, Bush I, and even Reagan and Nixon. It's only by comparing him to W and Mittens that he looks even the least bit "left."

From the point of view of those of us on the left (or even those of us who were considered moderates in the early 1990's) the Conservatives already control all three branches of government. It's not hard for some to not see the differences between Obama and Romney.

Don't go demanding ideological purity. Make the case for voting FOR Obama instead of AGAINST Romney if you want to encourage turnout.

[leveymg]

67. Q1: "Our issue" . . . Who is we?

Q2: "most people on the left do not vote. Even when registered, they stay home." In whose studies is that evaluation based? I was under the impression that those who don't vote are without definite ideologies, the uncommitted, the young, the very poor, and those who feel no particular commitment to political change. There are very few actual leftists in America, and even fewer of them have determined to not even vote.

Q3: "When they come to sites like this and see a bunch of negative things, it confirms their misguided belief that voting is pointless." What makes you think there are "a bunch of negative things" at DU? Lots of skepticism and dissent over policy, or is that now bad and forbidden?

Q4: "The tea party will have the keys. We cannot risk that. WE CANNOT RISK THAT." See Q1. Who appointed you DU election-time enthusiasm police?

All this makes me s-o-o-o enthusiastic. Rah rah.

[roguevalley]

65. I find it strange that these threads come up. Not criticising their

candidates and putting things off is what Republicans do. I am not a republican nor am I a sheep that will follow along and ignore things that warrant discussion. I am a Democrat. I will speak my mind. lI am not going to be influenced for my vote because I do. I will vote for Mr. Obama because he's the only choice. Speaking my mind otherwise is good and I won't agree not to. No one on the DEMOCRATICunderground should feel they have to ask others to do that. IMHO.

[bluestateguy]

3. I'm game for that, but there will be a few whiners who won't

The same people who were pissing and moaning and making demands the morning after the 2008 election.

[Luminous Animal]

26. Perhaps you could give activists a specific time frame during which they are allowed to speak.

[bluestateguy]

29. OK

If Obama wins: now until after New Year's; let's all relax and enjoy the holidays.

If Obama loses: now until the day after the election.

Hope this helps!

[Luminous Animal]

32. Unbelievable. You are actually advising anti-war, and social & economic activists

to keep their mouths shut.

[bluestateguy]

46. I'm just kidding

Do what you want, but understand that bad-mouthing the president in the middle of a campaign plays into the hands of the other side.

[Pab Sungenis]

48. The things we "bad-mouth" (your words, not mine) Obama for

are things that would never convince someone to vote for Romney instead.

The big concern we have is that the left is going to stay home like they did in 2010. Let's deal with the issues they have with Obama and give them a reason to turn out on election day and cast their ballot.

[Vincardog]

111. Bingo: give them a reason to turn out on election day and cast their ballot.

[mzmolly]

58. Activism is as activism does.

eom

[AtomicKitten]

102. !

[Tarheel_Dem]

4. I couldn't agree more, and I've kept hoping against hope that Skinner would as well.

[quinnox]

5. where you been, its been like this for awhile

now at DU. Maybe you mean we should be praising Obama to the moon every chance we get, because I sure haven't seen hardly any real criticism for a long time. What I have seen has been extremely mild, and not attacking at all.

[Lionessa]

7. Sorry, if being here requires mindless, blind loyalty regardless

of what Obama has done, is doing, and comments about.... Well you may as well re-name it RepublicanUnderground because those are the kool-aid drinking rules of the righties.

[progressivebydesign]

10. Enjoy the Koch bRothers presidency. n/t

[Lionessa]

76. Actually if I behave in the manner suggested in this OP, I would be behaving

exactly like a Koch pawn does, just in the opposite direction. Ignorance and silence leading to blind loyalty to either side isn't a way i want to be for you or the Koch Bros.

PS: I mention "you" and "the OP" and don't say "Obama," because Obama, unlike you and the OP, have never asked anyone not to criticize, and quite the opposite has said to keep his feet to the fire. So in no way do I hold this foolish OP or the comments therein against Obama or his admin or his campaign.

[Puglover]

103. EXACTLY!

It is amazing that President Obamas most aggressive fans on this site have not the foggiest clue what he is all about.

[AtomicKitten]

16. You could easily swap out 'Assange' for 'Obama' in your post.

Insight is an elusive beast here at DU.

[Luminous Animal]

28. Is there a TOS that require DUers to support Assange on this board?

I've seen the 'support Democratic candidates' TOS but I can't seem to find the Assange one.

[AtomicKitten]

30. Why should there be? There isn't one here that's enforced for Obama.

[treestar]

113. No but then the supporters will call one a republican, etc. for even questioning

the idea that maybe Julian should answer to Swedish charges.

Just maybe he should not be above the law is enough for some DUers to label others as paid trolls, etc.

[Lionessa]

74. Absolutely correct, though I'm not sure what that has to do with this topic

or with me. I generally support Assange and believe that based on some aspects that have been reported about the rape charges, that he is wise to avoid extradition.

[WI_DEM]

19. it's not like you ever praise him for anything so it really doesn't matter.

That said I think while this suggestion is well meaning it isn't really practical.

[Lionessa]

72. This is not true, though rare, I do give him credit when it's due,

and always make a point of mentioning that since I'm generally not super pro-Obama, it is important to be sure to speak up when I do agree with his opinions or actions.

[liberallibral]

33. Agree with Lionessa!

I will definitely be voting for Obama (and will be happy again to do so), but there's no way in HELL I'm going to drink 100% of the Kool-Aid and NOT criticize the president or his administration, when I disagree with something they say or do... If that makes them boot me off of DU so be it - but I think the world has already seen what "silence" and "lock-step obedience" can do...

[progressivebydesign]

8. Sadly there are some purists that think their own opinions are more important than that..

It's a battle every election. The republicans blow, but they know how to circle the wagons around their candidate (even if they're putrid.) We have a wonderful President who I'm happy to support. I know that everything I might have wanted didn't happen in the past -4 years, but what HAS happened has been amazing. I just don't undertand people like that. I think that they're just so in love with their ideas, that they can't see how it affects everyone else's lives.

I still have the image of the people in Cuyahoga, Ohio, standing in line until late in the night, for hours and hours in 2004. They stood there in the poorer precincts, waiting to vote for the President, while the rich areas had more than enough machines and locations. They stood sometimes for 8 hours waiting to vote, and many were unable. That is what motivates me to keep my eyes on the prize, and stop thinking of only myself and my own little wish list. This is much more important and will affect tens of millions of people. I will NEVER concede the election to the Koch Brothers and Karl Rove, in the form of trashing the current Administration right now. too many lives are at stake.

[flamingdem]

9. Anyone with a brain and a heart knows that it's time to unite behind Obama

If not now when?

[DinahMoeHum]

11. The late great Doris "Granny D" Haddock was spot-on

about leftist criticism of candidates who are their potential allies, and who aren't happy with the slowness of changes in our nation. . .

http://www.grannyd.com/speeches/sub-speeches/dont-stand-in-the-way-4-30-03.htm

(The boldface emphasis below is mine - DMH)
(snip)
There are many among us who will not support a candidate unless that candidate is perfect on every issue. Politics is about winning. For us, it is about winning to save lives and raise people up from poverty and illness and loneliness and injustice. Those posturing on the left sometimes forget that. Don't tell me that you can't support a particular candidate because of this or that. This isn't about you and your precious political standards. It is about saving nature and our people. We are coming out to win, so please don't stand in our way. When we have reasonable people in power, let us start our arguments again, for we can not move forward unless we have a decent government underneath us and a Bill of Rights to let us speak freely.
(snip)

You're disappointed with Obama? Fine, I understand your impatience. But please don't play your (potential) allies like adversaries, OK? If you don't want to give $$ to Obama's campaign, then at least focus your anger on those Senate and Congressional 'Pukes who are standing in the way. Donate some $$ and time for the down-ticket Democratic candidates (Senate and Congress) without whose support we will NOT get the changes that you and I want for ourselves and our nation.

[Richard D]

15. Yes

Good idea. Way too much is at stake. It pains me to see liberals trashing Obama now, many of whom are saying that they won't vote this election. A vote not for Obama is directly a vote for "W"illard.

[Sirveri]

91. I'm in CA, he has a 23 point lead. My one vote will not swing that. Furthermore;

A vote for Jill Stein (Green) is not a vote for Rmoney. A vote for Obama is a vote for Obama. A vote that would have gone to Obama that goes 3rd party is one less vote for Obama. A vote for Rmoney from Obama is TWO votes away from Obama, because Obama goes down one and Rmoney goes up one (net swing of two as opposed to one).

So by simple math they are not the same as a 'direct' vote.

The next issue is the message this sends in states that are 'secure', if we actually were to see large pick ups of 3rd party Liberal/progressive parties it might actually send a message to the Democratic party establishment to start moving back to the left before they totally disenfranchise their base. I say secure because there is no way in hell I'd advise this to anyone living in a swing state. So basically Washington (state and DC), CA, NY (most of New England), and Hawaii, hey why not, even with a ten point swing towards a liberal 3rd party Obama still wins the state (in my case with a comfortable 13 point lead, if they voted Romney instead it would be a tight 3 point lead), this also encourages voters to get out and actually go and vote and since they're voting pull the lever for the other Democrats on the line even if they're pissed at Obama.

[PatrynXX]

17. yeah but al gore started it

against Keith. we'd be much more pumped up with Keith on deck..

[emilyg]

18. No.

[AtomicKitten]

21. I'm stunned you would say that.

Not.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=479225

[emilyg]

71. My party is more

important to me than any one individual.

[AtomicKitten]

85. well that's clearly not true

... since you voted for somebody other than the Democratic nominee in 2008 in the general election because that "somebody" was more important to you than the party.

[emilyg]

95. I strongly felt Clinton

was better for the party.

[CakeGrrl]

92. So you no-voted the ACTUAL candidate in 2008? You contradict yourself.

The individual who was not on the ballot was clearly more important to you than voting for the party. Confirmed.

[emilyg]

94. I felt Clinton would

be better for the party.

[SidDithers]

88. Wow...

Sid

[AtomicKitten]

90. yep

This kind of stuff has made me really admire and appreciate those that have pivoted gracefully from the hard-fought 2008 primary and united with the party. It also proves beyond a shadow of a doubt there are people here whose criticism of the president comes from a very dark and ugly place.

[fried eggs]

40. So you're OK with "forcible rape" Ryan

picking justices? We all know he'll be the real president.

[MotherPetrie]

22. I have NUMEROUS issues with Obama. But I've called a truce until the first Wed. in Nov.

Because as majorly disappointed as I am in Obama, I'm definitely not ready to cut off my nose to spite my face with a Rmoney presidency.

[AtomicKitten]

116. +

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

23. It is the responsibility of the people in a democracy to hold public servants accountable.

Even in an election year.

[uponit7771]

25. Of course, but most of the criticism on DU on GOP trial baloons IMHO...they're mostly half ass'd

...told positions...

[uponit7771]

24. We should stop ALL the unfair lying ass'd half truth criticism way before election. There are some..

...posters who can't tell the whole story about the OBama admin to save their lives.

Obama deserves some criticism though and even with it I'd vote for him and advocate others to do the same

[ibegurpard]

27. sorry i'm not seeing much

I've been one of Obama's biggest detractors on education, healthcare and other issues and he's got my support 100%.

[Trajan]

31. Herding Kindergartners ?

Im pretty sure EVERY person who posts on DU between now and the election will obey your request ...

I am absolutely certain of it !



Righhhhhhhhht ....

[liberallibral]

34. Hahaha!!!

[dawg]

35. So undecided voters click through from a Google link and find out ...

that some of us think Obama is waaaaaaaay too conservative. I don't see that pushing them to Romney. I think it helps position the President as the Centrist that he is.

I'm not in the mood to criticize the President right now, but I don't support telling fellow liberals to "watch what you say".

[marlakay]

36. It's not being phony to promote the best we can get

So I say…all in for Obama!

[Fumesucker]

37. Which election? 2016? n/t

[Prism]

38. Newp. Some people think it's never a good time to criticize.

Wait until after the election. But he's only been in office for X months. Wait until after healthcare. Wait until after midterms. Wait until . . . blah blah blah.

Silence = Death.

No one should ever be silent if a wrong is being perpetrated.

[girl gone mad]

68. Exactly. We've been told to keep silent since before he was even sworn in.

Considering what's at stake, it's imperative that we speak out.

[Pab Sungenis]

41. For me, Obama's two Supreme Court appointments have already been a disaster.

Replacing liberal David Souter with "moderate" Sonia Sotomayor and the most pro-gay Justice in history with anti-marriage Elena Kagan moved the court further to the right than any other President before W managed.

Don't try to use the Supreme Court to fearmonger me or anyone else into supporting Obama. You lost that right the minute Elena Kagan was sworn in.

If you're concerned about criticism of Obama, then why don't you start posting the POSITIVE reasons to vote for him instead? That will go a lot further.

[edhopper]

45. Links?

Can you give a comparison of Souter and Sotomayor votes to illustrate your accusations?

[Pab Sungenis]

47. New York Court Watcher has some excellent links and graphs on this.

http://www.newyorkcourtwatcher.com/2009/05/supreme-court-retiring-justice-souter.html
http://www.newyorkcourtwatcher.com/2012/06/part-8-focus-on-justice-sotomayor.html




Souter voted liberally 87 percent of the time. Sotomayor votes liberally 83 percent of the time.

[edhopper]

56. Given the variety of cases

and margin of error, Looks like it's an even swap.

Unfortunately, due to GOP obstructionism it will be impossible to put a very left progressive on the Court.
But if you think Sotomayor and Kagan are the same as Roberts and Alito, your daft.

[Pab Sungenis]

60. They're not the same as Roberts and Alito

but they're more conservative than the people they replaced. And when it comes to the one overriding issue in my life right now (marriage equality), which is a life or death issue for me, Elena Kagan is the same as Roberts and Alito: opposed to it.

Before I give the President the benefit of the doubt on another nominee, I want him to hear that he'll never appoint anyone else who says that there is no Constitutional right to same-sex marriage.

[DrewFlorida]

97. So you admit they are not as bad as Roberts and Alito!

Yet you would still consider voting for a republican president to allow three more like Roberts and Alito!
Your logic doesn't stand up! This reminds me of Hilary's supporters saying they would vote for McCain in the last election, because Obama had beaten her in the primaries, cut off the nose to spite the face and we all end up worse off! It amounts to a temper tantrum, nothing more!

I suggest you put your full support behind the lesser of two evils, then after the election continue fighting for the issue which is so important to you personally, it's your last best chance of attaining your goal, don't screw it up!

I agree that Marriage equality should be protected for all people to choose as they wish, good luck, I hope that issue is resolved favorably for you and everyone else!

[Pab Sungenis]

106. Here we go again. More fear mongering and straw-manning.

They are not as bad as W's appointees, but they are worse than the people they replaced. And since at least one of the three Justices likely to step down next term is the only Justice who consistently voted more liberal than even Souter did, I want some assurance that we're not going to see another Third-Way, anti-gay, "moderate" take her place.

And at what point did I ever say I was considering voting for a Republican President? I've consistently said I'm voting for Obama. But either way, the Supreme Court is lost for at least 30 years. Obama moved it to the right and will probably continue to move it to the right. Romney would most likely do the same thing.

My point is that if you really want people to vote for Obama, don't keep telling us that the reason to do so is the Supreme Court. Obama already fucked up the Court for the foreseeable future. Give people reasons to vote FOR Obama instead of AGAINST Romney.

[LynneSin]

42. In just a few days he will be the official Democratic Nominee for 2012

and at DU we support the Democratic Candidates.

Nuff said!

[Nye Bevan]

43. The title of every post between now and November should be "I like Obama".

DUers should address each other as "fellow Obama enthusiast".

Everyone's signature line should be "Obama rocks".

Every post should be analyzed for any hints of ambivalence in the poster's loyalty, with the poster being swiftly dealt with when appropriate.

[DrewFlorida]

49. The next administration will possibly have 3 retiring Supreme Court Justices.

That alone is reason enough to focus our energies on making sure Obama is elected. What ever issues people have against Obama should be set aside for the next 2 months. If we don't pull together, you won't have to worry about being upset with Obama because Mitt the Teaparty puppet will be the decider in chief, and that will mean an eventual overturning of Roe vs Wade and a host of other extreme right-wing agenda victories.

[Pab Sungenis]

52. Can you promise me Obama is going to appoint three liberals? Or even one liberal?

If not, then don't use the Court as an argument. Stick to what he's done, not what you think he's going to do.

[DrewFlorida]

96. Would you rather have another Elena Keagan or another Anthony Kennedy?

If that is not reason enough, I don't know what is!

[Pab Sungenis]

107. Really? Anthony Kennedy.

Kennedy is more likely to vote pro-gay and pro-civil-rights than Kagan.

[backscatter712]

50. Obama will be fine. He's already handing Mittwit his ass. n/t

[Frustratedlady]

51. Absolutely. There was so much infighting during the Pug convention...

we sure don't want to emulate them.

Onward and upward to victory!

[TBF]

53. I alerted on this post yesterday and the jury let it stand -

lib2DaBone (7,814 posts)
12. All voters should know...

View profile
NO ONE in Washington even cares one iota what you think.

You are not even on their radar. They could care less about you or your family.

Republicorp/Democorp.. it make NO difference.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1256412

THIS is what we're dealing with - folks trying to depress turn-out and who do you think they work for? I wouldn't be surprised if they are paid for that work. And yet it stands.

[LiberalLovinLug]

54. Its a fine line

I think its simple minded and naive to accept an edict like this at face value. But I agree with the premise. All I can say is I HOPE most on here would tone it down somewhat until after the election. But it depends on the topic. There are some things that I agree with stopping altogether like the "both parties are the same corporate shills" which I gladly admit to posting in the past. It does no good in getting out the vote. And it is vitally important to re-elect Obama.

I wish I held a great love for Obama and his capitulationist policies, and I could say that I would be glad to be voting FOR him rather than more desperate to make sure that the Koch-Baggers don't get in....but I can't. But its still reason enough to lay off the hard critizism until its over.

Now when you are talking about issues that the GOP is also in favor of, like the War on Drugs, particularly medical marijuana, I do not see any reason to let up. Or the Bradley Manning case. Or the lack of punishment for Wall Street criminals. Probably a few more. These are all fair game because they impact BOTH parties.

[Pab Sungenis]

62. Sadly, whenever we stop the criticism

they do something like invite Cardinal Dolan to the Convention.

They seem to think that hippie-punching and queer-baiting will win over the independents. As a result, they end up alienating their own base.

[Capt. Obvious]

55. I didn't know this was a problem

Sure, once in a while the pom-poms get dropped as the cheerleaders faint or use their hands to cup their mouths while they scream, "ENJOY PRESIDENT KOCH INDUSTRIES! YOU'VE ALWAYS HATED OBAMA!" but these criticisms you speak of are not an issue - non-existent or rather mild quite frankly.

Besides, any sort of criticism - even the mild ones or just the perceived criticisms - of Obama becomes a shit show as the Jets and the Sharks swarm in from all corners. As such, OP's that are strongly critical of Obama are rather rare.

[Vox Moi]

57. Is this Underground about Obama or Democracy?

Yes, we are at war with a political party who will lie about everything and cheat to every degree in order to win.
We cannot afford to loose the election. We also cannot afford to win if the cost of that victory is the goal itself.
To abolish criticism in pursuit of Democracy is to make it meaningless.
Moreover, it is a desperate, ill-advised tactic that we don't need at all.
We don't need to hold Obama as above criticism in order to have a clear alternative to the Republicans and I think that Obama would be the first to say so. "It's not about me ... it's about you."
Aren't some of the Republican talking points centered around the tyranny of Obama: shoving health care down our throats, Obama's secret socialist agenda, his broken promises? The Republicans are not interested in answers to those things because they can't win on the answers.
Obama can. We have a good candidate, we get good answers and deserve more of them. Those answers do persuade others to support him. Most citizens should be attracted to a candidate who answers questions for a change.
If I were the Republicans I'd be happy to point out that a "Democratic" forum that favors Obama will not tolerate criticism.
Let Obama, his fabulous campaign staff and the DNC handle the campaign. They do very well, thank you. They don't need us to create a shiny, attractive candidate for President.
Leave it to us to do what we can to assure that they are packaging something of value to us.
The great big big positive is the process itself. It's what we mean by Democracy in the first place. That is why we believe in it.

[Enrique]

59. criticisms have been on hold for a while now

we just sent 200 Marines to Guatemala, to deafening silence.

[DainBramaged]

61. Agreed

[AnotherMcIntosh]

63. > In a choice between authoritarianism and democratic participation, I choose democratic participation.

The re-election of Obama is not the only thing at issue.

We also have Democratic Senatorial candidates up for election, as well as Democratic House candidates.

The election of such candidates is also important. To the extent that they analyze why we are voting for them, an effort to make our voices known - even on a web site such as this one - has some possibility of affecting their future actions.

As just one example, both presidential candidates support the latest pending job-transferring "free-trade" agreement. The terms of the agreement are being negotiated in secret, but Rmoney supports it and he has been rightfully criticized for getting rich while shipping jobs to foreign countries. The Senate Democrats have not yet approved of the pending "free-trade" agreement, but now some want us to be silent on the issue? If some of us make our opposition known, some Democratic Senators may vote against it.

Both presidential candidates support the adoption of another job-transferring "free-trade" agreement, which some are calling the NAFTA of the Pacific:

Trans-Pacific negotiations have been taking place throughout the Obama presidency. The deal is strongly supported by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the top lobbying group for American corporations. Obama's Republican opponent in the 2012 presidential elections, Mitt Romney, has urged the U.S. to finalize the deal as soon as possible.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/13/obama-trade-document-leak_n_1592593.html

Here's the let's-transfer-jobs-to-foreign-countries "free-trade" agreements that have been signed so far:

1994 - NAFTA

2001 - Jordan – United States Free Trade Agreement
2004 - Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement
2004 - Chile - United States Free Trade Agreement
2004 - Singapore – United States Free Trade Agreement
2005 - Dominican Republic–Central America Free Trade Agreement (DR-CAFTA; incl. Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, and the Dominican Republic)
2006 - Bahrain – United States Free Trade Agreement
2006 - Morocco - United States Free Trade Agreement
2006 - Oman – United States Free Trade Agreement
2007 - Peru – United States Trade Promotion Agreement

2011 - Panama - United States Trade Promotion Agreement
2011 - Colombia - United States Trade Promotion Agreement
2011 - Republic of Korea (South Korea) - United States Free Trade Agreement

If there is a better way to destroy what is left of the American middle-class than shipping even more jobs to foreign countries, what is it? And now, according to some, we are supposed to remain silent?

Obama is going to be re-elected. But we should remain silent? We don't elect dictators. We never have. It is not our job to remain silent. It is our responsibility in a participatory democracy to speak up.

If President Obama and his campaign staff want to do what is right for us, they will want us to make our views known. If they want nothing but cheerleaders, then they won't.

[Exen Trik]

64. I don't think so...

It isn't a good thing for us to hold our tongues while something is going on that we disagree about, that's how the left always ends up with it's criticisms being ignored. We'll vote no matter what, and not complain because the other side is so terrible. But I think that a vocal segment that has problems with, say, the treatment of whistleblowers, might make them at least think they should try to appeal to the "extremes" of their own supporters, lest too many of they stay home.

But we need to do everything to make our own party not only strong but healthy short of weakening it. And that means we take the fight against the repubs lies twice as harder as anything we complain about our side. I also sorta wish there were regular independent liberal challengers to push our party back to the left, but that's a day further off yet. After the insane competition finally collapses in on its own madness.

[JDPriestly]

66. Because we want people to get excited and talk and learn about things and vote intelligently this

year, and because we need EVERYBODY to help us get Obama and Democrats elected, could we please stop criticizing people who don't agree with us or with Obama on every single policy.

We are Democrats. We can live with diversity not just of race and sexual preference but also with diverse ideas about the economy, the justice system, economic recovery. We can deal with it. In fact, the more ideas and the more diverse the ideas the more creatively we approach not just solving the nation's problems but getting good candidates, good Democrats elected this Fall.

Don't be afraid of criticism. Without it we get complacent and don't improve.

But then I've never understood what cheerleading is all about.

[FredStembottom]

69. Americans speak.

That's what makes us Americans.

Our speech is never corralled.

Never.

[SidDithers]

89. Your speech at DU is corralled all the time...

that's why we have Terms of Service, Group and Forum Statements of Purpose, and the jury system.

Sid

[intheflow]

70. No.

Everything is open to debate in a free and open democracy. If you seek to limit debate among even people who support Obama's goals (if not his ways to reach them), you are advocating behavior no better than lock-stepping Republicans.

[emilyg]

73. Yep. I hold my

party dear - not any individual. If he deserves criticism - bring it on.

[AtomicKitten]

87. ((cough))

Last edited Mon Sep 3, 2012, 10:55 PM - Edit history (2)

See the discussion upthread starting here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1260057

What is clear is that you are being disingenuous in your "criticism" of the president and that your stated rationale is directly opposite of the truth as you yourself have divulged.

[Lucinda]

75. +1

[deutsey]

80. Same here

I can criticize the Democratic candidate and still vote for him. Criticism and support are only mutually exclusive in the GOP.

[Sherman A1]

77. "To announce that there must be no criticism of the president,

or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."

Theodore Roosevelt

[deutsey]

81. Perfect quote

[Sherman A1]

98. Thanks

I thought it to be appropriate for the moment.

[bullwinkle428]

104. That one holds a lot more weight with me than the Ari Fleisher-esque "Watch what you say".

[Sherman A1]

112. Indeed

Considering it was spoken by someone who actually held the office vs someone who worked for and who's job it was to protect the person who held the office. I must completely agree with your point of view.

[treestar]

114. In the world generally

Not on a message board with TOS.

[Sherman A1]

117. Then, in your opinion

we are to do what?

[Le Taz Hot]

78. Um, no.

The goddess gave me a perfectly good brain. I do believe she meant for me to use it.

[Marrah_G]

79. No

I am sure there are forums and blogs run by the party and the campaign in which you can read about only the sunshine and rainbows. I think to ignore it when our party and/or our President screws up is just plain wrong.

[Alduin]

82. Taking away criticism is taking away democracy.

[woo me with science]

83. You know what? To hell with these admonitions that DU become just like the MSM.

Seriously. There could not be a more ridiculous, misguided, and pernicious suggestion for DU. We are already drowning in a sea of "messaging" and propaganda and an MSM that utterly ignores, obscures, and misrepresents the most important issues in our nation right now. We are continually force-fed pablum and fairytales about what is really happening to all of us. And now you want to turn the political gathering places we have left in into more of the same?

No. We have our fill of propaganda theater, thank you very much, every goddamn day and on every goddamn network. Especially during an election year, an electorate needs places to talk honestly about what is really going on.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/30/election-2012-media-vast-rightwing-conspiracy-stupid

Election 2012 and the media: a vast rightwing conspiracy of stupid
Glenn Greenwald
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 30 August 2012 11.23 EDT

....
The election process is ....what inculcates many Americans to believe that they enjoy vibrant political debate and stark democratic choice, even as so many of the policies that are most consequential and destructive for their lives – the "war on drugs", the supremacy of the covert national security and surveillance states, vast inequalities in the justice system, crony capitalism that rapidly bolsters the oligarchy that owns the political process – are steadfastly ignored because both parties on those matters have exactly the same position and serve the same interests. (Watch how often Obama supporters will defend their leader from conservative attacks by proudly arguing that Obama's policies are actually the same as that which conservatives advocate: he's severely cut government spending even more than Bush and Reagan! Wall Street and corporate profits are at an all-time high! He's killed and killed and killed some more! His healthcare plan comes from a rightwing thinktank! Nobody has been more faithful to Israel than Obama! He's severely harmed Iran with sanctions and isolation! etc.)

It's where the candidates pretend to believe in a whole litany of base-pleasing and populist policies that enable their loyalists to claim there are vast differences between them, even though such campaign pronouncements have virtually no predictive value in determining what they will do in office – as the New York Times's Peter Baker, writing about foreign policy campaign platforms, put it today with great understatement: "the relationship between what presidential candidates say on the campaign trail and what they do once elected can be tenuous."

It's where the handful of important issues on which there are genuinely sharp and clear differences – social issues, reproductive rights, jurisprudence philosophy, a few social program and tax policies – are endlessly exploited to heighten cultural divisions and, more importantly, to obscure the similarities on everything else.

The election year process could and should be a meaningful opportunity for real political debate: the one time every four years when the majority of the population that is too busy or uninterested to pay much attention becomes engaged and thus informed. Instead, the process is the ultimate deceit. And the ultimate distraction.



Also, a link to an outstanding post by Zorra about why holding feet to the fire is so important...*especially* now: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1240&pid=140005

[joshcryer]

84. Eh, not necessary. DU doesn't drive the narrative as much as it pretends.

That doesn't mean there aren't people here trying to do that and suppress the vote or spout nonsense from their positions of privilege, of course.

[SidDithers]

86. There are DUers who don't want Obama to win...

sad that they're still allowed to post here.

Sid

[CakeGrrl]

93. Even scarier than ever given the alternative.

Anger and resentment run deep across the spectrum where those sentiments exist.

[just1voice]

99. Sure thing bub, you let me know when it's OK to speak the truth again OK???

I'll be anxiously awaiting your approval, LOL.

[HiPointDem]

100. when is the good time? since i saw all kinds of threads after the election telling people how

'he's only been in office 6 months....a year....two years..." etc. Then there were the midterms and that wasn't a good time. Now the general and that's not good either.

I actually think the best time to criticize and gain concessions is before elections because they have to pay attention.

[bigwillq]

105. No

It's a free country. If you don't like the criticism, ignore user and hide thread work just fine.

[99Forever]

108. Who should we submit our post to..

... for approval before posting?

You?

[_ed_]

109. Sorry

I'm as entitled to think and criticize right now as I will be in November. If you want blind loyalty to the Dear Leader, become a Republican or move to North Korea.

[Vincardog]

110. Now is the time to pressure him to move LEFT. After the election we have less leverage. If he

reschedules MM before the election, I will trust he is going to be more liberal.

[fascisthunter]

115. what are you 12? I think the President is a big boy and handle criticism just fine

grow up or log off and get out more often.