General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsDem lawmaker blasts ‘Professor Obama’ as arrogant, alienating
Dem lawmaker blasts Professor Obama as arrogant, alienating
By Rep. Dennis Cardoza (D-Calif.) - 12/13/11 06:05 AM ET
After observing President Obama for the last three years, it has become obvious to me that the president might prefer to be a university professor rather than do the job he holds today. While he might not realize that he feels this way, the evidence is very clear to those who work with or watch him closely. ...
In the presidents first year in office, his administration suffered from what I call idea disease. Every week, and sometimes almost every day, the administration rolled out a new program for the country. There was no obvious prioritization and, after the rollout, very little effort to actually pass the latest idea/imperative/plan/edict. ... This lack of focus also made it easy for congressional Republicans to stall and foil many of President Obamas best initiatives which they did with relish!
Early in his administration, President/Professor Obama repeatedly referred to teaching moments. He would admonish staff, members of Congress and the public, in speeches and in private, about what they could learn from him. Rather than the ideological or corrupt Im above the law attitudes of some past administrations, President Obama projected an arrogant Im right, youre wrong demeanor that alienated many potential allies. Furthermore, the president concentrated power within the White House, leaving Cabinet members with no other option but to dutifully carry out policies with which they had limited input in crafting and might very well disagree. From my experience, this was especially true in the environmental, resources, housing and employment areas. Not by coincidence, these areas have also been responsible for much of the presidents harshest critiques.
......................
the rest:
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/cardozas-corner/198861-the-professorial-president
Autumn
(44,972 posts)Not sure about the Professor Obama part but I think I agree with Rep. Cardoza assessment.
bhikkhu
(10,711 posts)or perhaps "he doesn't know his place". I look at the examples given and they look appropriate to me - congress is very much in need of "teaching moments", and very much in need of someone to deliver them.
Response to kpete (Original post)
Post removed
ProSense
(116,464 posts)this statement is absurd:
Sounds like someone with issues!
zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)I mean really, that's all ya got to say?
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"Sure attack the messenger I mean really, that's all ya got to say?"
...he's a blue dog, and he sounds bitter.
He votes with Republicans more than 50 percent of the time. He just voted for Boehner's crazy bill: http://www.democraticunderground.com/100214138
http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/199175-house-passes-payroll-tax-extension-bill
I'm not a fan of the remaining blue dogs who are in the House.
zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)He writes a long opinion piece based upon personal experience and you have no reply except character assassination. We used to hammer the Bush administration for that approach.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)".So you justify attacking the messenger"
...bother me in the least. I know the comments on these articles are dominated by RW kooks, but reading the comments, I'm sure that's not the reaction Cardoza expected.
Along with the vicious comments aimed at the President and Democrats, he's getting slammed with some vile crap.
His piece is nothing more than a whining from a sellout Democrat who is pissed the President doesn't agree with his preference for what the Republicans are selling. In his view, the President is "arrogant" and lecturing the likes of Boehner instead of working with them to screw the country over.
You can agree with him and consider my opinion attacking the messenger, and that's fine by me.
His support for Republicans was part of the problem. Good riddance!
zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)And not attack him, in the context of his message, but in fact attack the message.
Your's is just lazy.
But I see we've now switched to false dichotomies
ProSense
(116,464 posts)And not attack him, in the context of his message, but in fact attack the message.
Your's is just lazy.
...point makes no sense. What makes this asshole the messenger? You disagree with him? It's his message. He isn't delivering a fact, it's his opinion. You disagree with him, well so do I.
The problem here is you're simply twisting in the wind trying to sound logical: he isn't the messenger, it's his idiotic opinion.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)His opinion..he owns it, it is his message and his value system implemented in how he interprets Obama's actions and motivations. How can disagreeing with him not be an attack on the messenger?
I disagree with his opinion. The idea that Obama cant multitask, and offer numerous solutions to a complicated economic situation, without being called a professorly elitsit, is ludicrous on its face.
Publically demanding for the further dumming down of America and it's leaders is to be lauded?
zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)You just trash his reputation. The specifics of his opinion are ignored. It's basically an adhominen attack, another logical fallicy in which you are choosing to indulge.
But go ahead and argue the semantics rather than the point.
Response to zipplewrath (Reply #81)
Post removed
zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)Do you ever address points or opinions or just character and personality?
ProfessorGAC
(64,827 posts)You keep hammering the same point over and over and won't address the fact that attacking the guy who is OFFERING AN OPINION is the problem, rather than the statement itself.
If someone uses a racial epithet toward Obama, should be debate the merit of the term or should we just dismiss the person proferring the epithet as a racist buffoon?
GAC
zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)The logical fallacies keep moving around, but yes the underlying point is the same. Some guy being labeled as a "Blue dog" is criticizing Obama for not being cooperative with congress. Kind of a funny position for someone in congress to take, especially a blue dog. I suspect a very good argument can be made against this point, although we have heard alot of this out of the democratic congress, so it isn't unique to this individual.
But I'm not sure what your new point is about raciel epithets. The guy didn't make a particularly personal attack on Obama. He made a professional assessment of his performance as president. One many of us probably wouldn't completely agree, but it is THAT opinion that should be addressed.
ProfessorGAC
(64,827 posts)You didn't understand, on purpose.
The point is too simple and straightforward for you to have missed.
You only missed it because it was inconvenient to your repetitive point.
Ms. Toad
(33,992 posts)is not even in the same ballpark with what happened here: Prosense responded to a paragraph from the article which said, in essence:
Many democrats wish someone else were running.
Obama still learn has time to learn from other respected dems.
I prefer him over anyone the Republicans have to offer
I am afraid the general voting public will not.
Her response "this statement is absurd . . .Sounds like someone with issues!"
The points made in the quoted paragraph are not in any way equivalent to a racial epithet - they are a mixture of opinions/concerns and purported facts.
A constructive response to that paragraph would be to dispute the purported facts (show that the first statement is factually inaccurate), or to disagree with the opinions. Explain why there isn't time - or why she don't want Obama to learn from those other dems, or why she believes the fear expressed in the last paragraph is not justifed.
Instead, Prosense responded with a character attack - the messenger has issues. (Arguably the assertion that that the statement is absurd is an attack on the message - but an attack more suited to a discussion board would be as I have outlined above - one liner dismissals aren't conducive to discussion.)
I opened this thread hoping that there might be some real discussion going on. I probably should have known better since Obama was part of the discussion. Instead of discussion I was greeted with the first dozen (probably more by the time I hit return) comments being pretty much a street brawl. It would be nice to evolve to a group that really could discuss political commentary on the merits.
Wait Wut
(8,492 posts)...when the message is his own. Attacking the messenger would be attacking the poster of the thread. ProSense is attacking the message that came from this guys lips by pointing out fallacies and hypocrisy.
spanone
(135,781 posts)who would you rather the poster attack?
ah, Obama....i see.
zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)It's the logical thing to do, literally.
Life Long Dem
(8,582 posts)Good Riddance.
opihimoimoi
(52,426 posts)he is a POS
bigtree
(85,971 posts)made it through to the DU eardrum
MisterP
(23,730 posts)doc03
(35,293 posts)so I figure there must be some truth in it. He had minimal experience in politics when he took office and hopefully he will learn from his mistakes eventually. So far he has been a slow learner.
waiting for the 3 a.m. call, huh?
To quote Krugman: Send in the Clueless
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/05/opinion/send-in-the-clueless.html
President Obama has done what most Presidents attempted to do and failed. He doesn't need lessons from the blue dogs and Republicans.
zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)Many have been trying to make this case, practically including the president himself, and getting and argument around here for years. Glad this finally appears to be settled.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)...did so to illustrate a point. He knows the deal. He's one the health care laws biggest supporters.
Krugman: Paying For Health Reform
http://www.democraticunderground.com/100211410
Thanks President Obama!
zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)But he is a supporter of what finally past, and even HE admits that it is "Republican-designed health reform".
Vincardog
(20,234 posts)The 111th Congress passed those bills.
PBO did not.
PBO does not give orders to Congress
Vincardog
(20,234 posts)Or to make sure that "Health CARE" reform kept its' promise to make sure Insurance Companies were not harmed.
He NEVER made a deal with the drug Companies to kill re-importation.
He Never put Social Security on the table.
He NEVER agreed to extend Bush's tax cuts.
I can't think of a single thing he has done that the Republicans would like.
That explains the Klown Kar chase in the GOP Primary:
They already have their man in the WH.
creon
(1,183 posts)doc03
(35,293 posts)was supposed to be his greatest accomplishment the HCR bill.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)was supposed to be his greatest accomplishment the HCR bill.
...wrong!
WASHINGTON, Nov. 29 - Vermont will receive more than $18 million to help the state implement a new national health care reform law, the state's congressional delegation announced today.
The federal funds will help the state devise an insurance exchange to make it simpler for consumers to select affordable health insurance policies.
Under the national health care law, insurance exchanges must be established in every state to provide consumers more affordable choices for health insurance coverage beginning in 2014.
Vermont plans to structure its exchange to be converted by 2017 to a public, single-payer health care model that would provide better care at less cost.
http://sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/news/?id=1a62f145-05a3-46e0-9ef7-888891ec73d1
Health Reform in Action
http://www.whitehouse.gov/healthreform
doc03
(35,293 posts)the House because of the HCR, we lost our Democratic congressman because he voted for it.
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)doc03
(35,293 posts)and vote in the presidential election than expect him to take care of everything all by himself for the next four years.
ellisonz
(27,711 posts)..and it's pissing a lot of people who are set in their ways off!
PragmaticLiberal
(904 posts)I'm assuming you're referring to his tenure as a U.S. Senator because Obama was a state senator for 7 years.
doc03
(35,293 posts)your own party and being in Washington.
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)Plus he kicked the tag-team asses of Clinton Inc., so your attempts to marginalize him are ludicrous.
emilyg
(22,742 posts)AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)ProfessorGAC
(64,827 posts)So, are you sure you want to stick with that premise?
tblue
(16,350 posts)Asked to describe the President as he was back then, the answer was "aloof."
I see it. He's not really a "people person." Now, you don't have to be one to be a good president. But that can't but hurt someone who is not.
I have perceived for along time that our POTUS is winging it in this job. There was no master plan, there was no clear ideology or steadfast adherence to priorities. The operative word was and is EXPEDIENCY. If we weren't in such dire straits we might be able to get by with ad hoc leadership. Unfortunately such is not the case.
vanlassie
(5,663 posts)GusFring
(756 posts)Whisp
(24,096 posts)''One former administration official told me directly that the people in the White House NEVER TALK TO REAL PEOPLE. Another former Obama staffer confided to me that it was clear to him that the president didnt mind giving speeches (lectures), but really avoided personal contact with members of Congress and folks outside the Beltway. He doesnt seem to derive energy from spending time with regular people the way Clinton did.''
Mr Cardoza, one former colleague of yours said that you eat your toenails when you think no one is looking and you NEVER clean up the crumbs. You carry out your duties by shaking an 8 ball then whiting out the result if you don't agree. Oh, and you should wash your shorts more frequently (this from an unnamed ex personal friend of yours)
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)vanlassie
(5,663 posts)Poor Denny- the Pwesident snubbed him!
doc03
(35,293 posts)as much as called him and asked for his support on anything. I have heard that over and over from people on both sides and journalists that Obama just doesn't have any friends in Washington and doesn't seem to like to get engaged in working with congress. I don't understand why when anyone criticizes the president for anything everyone goes on the attack. I mean what is in it for a Democrat especially to just make things up without reason?
Proud Liberal Dem
(24,391 posts)Can't say I really blame him. Manchin? The guy who ran for the Senate last year by running AGAINST Obama? And he's wondering why Obama doesn't pick up the phone and call him? Somebody needs to buy this guy a cluebat! Hell, some of the first words right out of the mouth of the DEMOCRATIC SENATE MAJORITY LEADER Harry Reid after President Obama's inauguration were "I don't work for President Obama." Obama also had a bunch of Blue Dogs in the Senate and House dedicating themselves to be obstinate pricks whom would make life difficult for President Obama RIGHT OUT OF THE GATE!
I don't mind legitimate criticisms of President Obama but I think that at least some of us can't stand to hear people, particularly people whom are supposedly members of his own party smearing him with lies and innuendo- stuff that is too far "out there" to be credibly believed.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"Can't say I really blame him. Manchin? The guy who ran for the Senate last year by running AGAINST Obama? "
...so far we've heard from Cardoza and Manchin. All we need now is for Lieberman to weigh in.
Every time I come across Democrats criticizing the President from the right, it reinforces my thinking that some of the President's loudest critics actually identify with the blue dogs and have been projecting these last few years.
Proud Liberal Dem
(24,391 posts)Their *criticism* means very little to me.
PufPuf23
(8,753 posts)since the 2008 election.
One can find on YouTube.
Proud Liberal Dem
(24,391 posts)They ought to just doggone love him if he was actually one of them, right?
PufPuf23
(8,753 posts)Potus Obama is a Blue Dog and he has stated so; and made appointments and supported policy more conservative Blue Dog than New Deal / Great Society liberalism.
There is a vast difference between neoliberals and Democratic Party members of age; neoliberals have coopted the Democratic party but do not represent the moral standing nor domestic prosperity of Keynesian Democrats.
Take an honest look at history and foreign economic interventions now come home to the USA.
Proud Liberal Dem
(24,391 posts)n/t
doc03
(35,293 posts)would have had a Teabagger Republican. It wouldn't have mattered with Bill Clinton he would at least tried some arm twisting.
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)Lord Magus
(1,999 posts)How's that any better?
Ikonoklast
(23,973 posts)It's because that's where he's most comfortable, also, his constituency is the most racist in this nation.
Proud Liberal Dem
(24,391 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)Not even invited onto Air Force One! Wonder if Obama would seat him in the Newt area of the plane if he did, though.
RBInMaine
(13,570 posts)caucuses from both parties. Allowed the congress to write the health bill and others. And on and on and on.
This is BULLSHIT.
Proud Liberal Dem
(24,391 posts)I feel like Congress (most of them) are like a bunch of squabbling toddlers that, when they realize they can't solve their own problems, demand that President Obama step in and solve their problems for them and then when he tries, they just start attacking him. I feel like we've become trapped in some kind of surreal bizarroworld.
treestar
(82,383 posts)It would be "caving" to the Blue Dogs.
eridani
(51,907 posts)I have had problems with Republican messaging coming from Obama (thankfully abandoned for the 2012 campaign), but "too academic"? WTF?
Proud Liberal Dem
(24,391 posts)Some people really need to grow up. I want an intelligent person, preferably somebody even smarter than I am, running this country and who will treat me as an adult.
frazzled
(18,402 posts)Are we attacking Obama from the right now? I guess anything that works, huh?
And this has gotten 6 recs. I wish the unrec function were back.
"Are we attacking Obama from the right now?"
Number23
(24,544 posts)that support it. Doesn't matter who said it or why.
The fact that this person is criticizing the president from the right is immaterial.
midnight
(26,624 posts)I'm witnessing families who haven't worked in 19 months...
MrScorpio
(73,630 posts)great white snark
(2,646 posts)Ikonoklast
(23,973 posts)"Uppity" is now just soooo passe now in the no-longer running the show White Male Club.
GoCubsGo
(32,073 posts)It's the other favorite word with that crowd. Must be getting tired of that one, too.
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)emulatorloo
(44,057 posts)saras
(6,670 posts)Without those, you're a Reagan or a Bush
Response to kpete (Original post)
Post removed
ProSense
(116,464 posts)Last edited Wed Dec 14, 2011, 10:44 AM - Edit history (1)
that the President threatened to veto Boehner's bill, which he just voted for.
http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/199175-house-passes-payroll-tax-extension-bill
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/14/us/politics/house-passes-extension-of-payroll-tax-cut.html
Maybe the President should be less "arrogant" and agree with Cardoza, sign this legislation and make his "progressive" critics happy.
Freddie Stubbs
(29,853 posts)Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)Laelth
(32,017 posts)-Laelth
Robb
(39,665 posts)So now the destruction of the environment is taking a back seat to the destruction of Obama's presidency?
You want to talk GOP tactics, there it is. Health care? Jobs? Keeping government running? NONE of that is as important as getting this uppity polysyllabic motherfucker out of office!
ProSense
(116,464 posts)by joelgp
Here we go again with one of the most incompetent, legislative Houses in U.S. history producing yet another laughable piece of legislation. They could have quietly given the middle-class a tax cut and headed home with their heads held high. But nooo!!!
That was just a bridge too far for them. They need to add sweeteners like the pipeline, federal layoffs and more federal cuts. Well, the CBO took a look at their ignorant document and said this according to TheHill.com:
1. The House bill will add $25.3 billion to the federal deficit over the next 10 years
2. Take billions from Medicare
3. Take billions from Social Security
4. Create another racist illegal alien ruse
5. Reduce Medicaid by billions
6. Freeze federal worker pay
7. Take 10s of Billions from federal worker retirement benefits
8. Take 31 billion from Other health provisions
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/12/09/1043787/-Breaking
These Blue Dog assholes like to pretend they care about the deficit, when in reality, they simply share the Republicans' goal of screwing over the most vulnerable Americans.
spanone
(135,781 posts)Hart2008
(2,350 posts)Robb
(39,665 posts)Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)Hart2008
(2,350 posts)While pushing for legislation seen by many on the Left as a boon to the private insurance industry, the President virtually ignored the countrys mounting jobs crisis until he started running for re-election, that is.
Extending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy added insult to injury and, in no small measure, helped to give rise to the Occupy Wall Street movement. Unlike the last Democratic administration, the gap between rich and poor has widened substantially during Obamas presidency.
The recipient of a staggering $37.6 million in Wall Street money between 1998 and his election in 2008, the President has been about as effective in turning this recession-ravaged economy around as Herbert Hoover in 1932. That was, of course, the year when the beleaguered Republican President tried to rescue the ailing U.S. economy with the passage of the relatively modest Emergency Relief and Construction Act and the creation of the Reconstruction Finance Corporation, neither of which came close to ending the Great Depression.
Instead of modeling his economic policy agenda after Herbert Hoover, President Obama and his advisers should have instead studied FDR and the New Deal.
The Presidents $787 billion stimulus package in 2009 much of which was used by Republican governors and GOP-controlled legislatures to balance state budgets did little for the private sector and was simply too meager to pull the country out of the depths of the Great Recession, a devastating economic downturn that millions of Americans believe never ended.
http://www.battlegroundblog.com/2011/10/26/darcy-richardson-why-im-running-for-president/
ProSense
(116,464 posts)The Presidents $787 billion stimulus package in 2009 much of which was used by Republican governors and GOP-controlled legislatures to balance state budgets did little for the private sector and was simply too meager to pull the country out of the depths of the Great Recession, a devastating economic downturn that millions of Americans believe never ended.
I smell bullshit!
Hart2008
(2,350 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)"I smell Herbert Hoover."
...Darcy is the next coming of FDR...in your dreams.
Hart2008
(2,350 posts)Sure sounds like Herbert Hoover to me.
Robb
(39,665 posts)10 years at Merrill Lynch and sent cash to Nader in 2000. String of failed attempts to fool progressives into voting for him with no wins, now he's trying the act on Democrats.
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)from the belly of the beast --
BTP member challenges Obama
link: http://www.bostontea.us/node/1049
BTP member Darcy G Richardson (Darcy2012.com) has filed as a Democratic Party candidate for the New Hampshire primary. According to articles here and here Darcy will be seeking primary ballot access in more States aside from New Hampshire.
Darcy says, "I hope that my candidacy, as limited as it may turn out to be, might in some small measure restore a belief in American politics and American government, reinforcing the notion that real change can be achieved at the ballot box."
As Chair of the BTP National Committee, I wish Darcy the best of luck in his campaign!
In Peace, Freedom, Love & Liberty,
Darryl W. Perry
Hart2008
(2,350 posts)Hart2008
(2,350 posts)Let's read the actual quote from Richardson's interview:
Q: You are (or were at one time) a member of the Boston Tea Party, a minor third party whose platform supports "reducing the size, scope and power of government at all levels and on all issues, and opposes increasing the size, scope and power of government at any level, for any purpose." Do you agree with this platform?
Richardson: My involvement with the Boston Tea Party a freedom-oriented, limited government entity was relatively short-lived. I assisted them a bit here in Florida because of Tom Knapp's personal involvement. Tom, a self-styled anarchist and original thinker, had founded the party shortly after the Libertarian Party's mid-term convention in 2006. An edgy and contemplative guy, Tom is a libertarian writer and activist for whom I have tremendous respect. He's one of the smartest people I know and is also probably one of the most talented writers that I've ever encountered.
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews_interviews_Darcy_Richardson,_Democratic_Party_presidential_challenger_to_Barack_Obama?dpl_id=310400
So the Boston Tea Party to which you are referring began 6 years ago and was not the "Teabagger" Repuke party of today. (And wasn't there also a restaurant chain by that name in the 80's?) It is worth noting that Democratic Party of today was founded by Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson's also decried needless government expansion:
After the folly of the Bank bailouts, which Obama voted for as Senator and continued as president, and the unpopular individual mandates which Obama has enacted, it is unlikely that Thomas Jefferson would be able to support such laws. The Democratic Party loses its way when it supports bankers and insurance companies over ordinary workers.
"[Ours is] a government founded in the will of its citizens, and directed to no object but their happiness." --Thomas Jefferson: Reply to North Carolina General Assembly, 1808. ME 16:300
"The only orthodox object of the institution of government is to secure the greatest degree of happiness possible to the general mass of those associated under it." --Thomas Jefferson to M. van der Kemp, 1812. ME 13:135
"The happiness and prosperity of our citizens... is the only legitimate object of government and the first duty of governors." -- Thomas Jefferson to Thaddeus Koscierusko, 1811. ME 13:41
To the extent that the bankers and insurance lobby have captured Washington, D.C., the desire to shrink the size of government is a natural reaction to that problem. The better solution is to reform government itself to limit their influence such that government better represents the will of its citizens. However, in the present political atmosphere, there is nothing wrong with a candidate who has expressed those concerns.
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)Here's another source validating BTP (Boston Tea Party) member, Darcy Richardson, that reflects verbatim the content of the now disabled link:
http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2011/10/darcy-richardson-challenges-obama-in-democratic-presidential-primary/
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course from the horse's mouth is always an excellent source. Note the interview Richardson gave admitting (and trying to minimalize) his membership and participation in the Boston Tea Party.
http://saluteguam.com/news/74-news/8321-wikinews-interviews-darcy-richardson-democratic-party-presidential-challenger-to-barack-obama
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your support for a teabagger (Richardson) and a nutcase (Ron Paul) is precious and not something you can easily deny what with the trail you've left here. Let that freak flag fly!
Hart2008
(2,350 posts)AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)Hart2008
(2,350 posts)AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)on edit: I just noticed the poster to whom I'm responding has been TS'd. Oh well.
... following President Obama's nomination. Here's an email he wrote corroborating that and seeking affiliation with the national Boston Tea Party.
link: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/btpnc/message/410
----- Original Message ----
From: Darcy G. Richardson <darcyrichardson aol.com>
To: btpnc-talkyahoogro ups.com
Sent: Monday, June 30, 2008 7:54:22 PM
Subject: Florida Requests Affiliation
The Boston Tea Party of Florida, organized on June 23, 2008, and
dedicated to keeping the flame of liberty alive in the Sunshine
State, hereby requests formal affiliation with the national Boston
Tea Party. We have adopted bylaws (subject to modification) for our
state organization and have elected the following officers:
State Chair:
John Wayne Smith of Leesburg, Florida
Treasurer:
Nicholas Galindo of Jacksonville, Florida
At-Large Member:
Charles Jay of Hollywood, Florida
We currently have nine active members and recently started a Yahoo!
Thank you for your kind consideration.
With best wishes,
Darcy G. Richardson
Hart2008
(2,350 posts)Robb
(39,665 posts)Be specific.
Hart2008
(2,350 posts)Mass
(27,315 posts)Hart2008
(2,350 posts)Mass
(27,315 posts)Cardoza opposed the Kucinich resolution.
http://cardoza.house.gov/index.cfm?sectionid=87&parentid=6§iontree=6,87&itemid=750
His statement about Afghanistan is exactly what you would expect from a blue dog.
Hart2008
(2,350 posts)There is nothing in the record to suggest that Richardson wants to continue the military occupations in Afghanistan or Iraq.
Mass
(27,315 posts)Hart2008
(2,350 posts)Unless Cardozza wises to challenge Obama himself at this late date?
Mass
(27,315 posts)nominee.
TwilightGardener
(46,416 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)it's very helpful. It shows that there is a level of anti-Obama sentiment not based in reality.
Think about it. Most people have been accusing the President of being "weak," "caving" to Republicans and spending too much time seeking "bipartisan" solutions.
Now, these same critics seem to agree that he's "arrogant" and "alienating."
What makes it more interesting is that it's coming from someone who often votes with Republicans against the President's policies.
What we have here is irony and hypocrisy.
Poll_Blind
(23,864 posts)He does a terrible job of explaining himself and regardless of whether or not I agree with any of the points he makes in some other context, I find his piece unmoving.
PB
Gman
(24,780 posts)I'm sure you'll be much happier. Seriously.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)going to get much attention, but here is what Cardoza voted for:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/100216296
What a guy!
creon
(1,183 posts)With which I have no problem. Free country.
It is this person's job to write and pass legislation. he should have done a better job in the 111th Congress.
Mass
(27,315 posts)in line with the RW of the party than with people here who think Obama is too right wing.
http://cardoza.house.gov/index.cfm?sectionid=87§iontree=6,87&showallitems=true
One of the title on his website is "Cardoza questions EPA head against agency activism"
Cardoza, Blue Dogs Call on President Obama to Push for Bipartisan Budget Compromise
http://cardoza.house.gov/index.cfm?sectionid=87&parentid=6§iontree=6,87&itemid=750
Congressman Cardoza Opposes Irresponsible Afghanistan Withdrawal
ProSense
(116,464 posts)recruiting candidates:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10142921
Anyone know any Blue Dogs who meet the "mature leadership" criteria?
What a friggin joke!
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)Because the triumphs of the anti-intellectualism, Dubya & the TeaBaggers, are so good for America.
Muskypundit
(717 posts)And regularly votes against democratic bills, and supports boner. He gets to put a D By his name and regurgitate talk radio points at us, and we are supposed to give him the time of day because he says he is a D.
I don't buy this crap. I am critical of the president, and I will listen to attacks on him from actual progressives, but not from republicans.
He is a minor member of a 300+ house. Obama probably has never met the guy, yet he pretends like he has an inside view. Bull. Bull. Bull.
yurbud
(39,405 posts)often to the dismay of progressives and detriment of the country.
He took a hands off approach to health care reform that left it in the hands of the most corrupt members of the Senate.
His stimulus bill start with half Republican snake oil of tax cuts
and when he does negotiate with the GOP, he either gets his ass handed to him or helpfully gives it to the GOP to hand it to him.
It would be nice if he just issued orders to members of his cabinet like Tim Geithner, who reportedly refused to break up big banks.
Thrill
(19,178 posts)Whats new?
rocktivity
(44,571 posts)Male cattle droppings.
This article is written by a fake "Blue Dog" Dem, and doesn't offer a single example of Cardoza's direct personal dealings with Obama. Instead, it's riddled with unsourced second-hand anecdotes and generalizations so broad it malfunctions even an opinion piece. Unless I missed the article he wrote about Bush II doing the exact same things.
I guess it takes a victim of "idea disease" to know one.
rocktivity
DirkGently
(12,151 posts)blackspade
(10,056 posts)Azathoth
(4,607 posts)Yeah, this is a useful analysis.