Why I became an "Obamabot"

[sheshe2]

snip

Since Barack Obama was elected president, his critics on both the left and right often accuse his defenders of engaging in blind support of him no matter what he does. They call us Obamabots. I'd like to suggest that is because they think we support the President solely based on his position on issues. I'm here to say that's not the case for me.

There is a lot of truth in the old adage: If two people agree on everything, one of them is unnecessary. That's what allows Democrats to consider FDR one of our greatest presidents, even though he is responsible for the Japanese internment camps. Its also why I never wavered in my support of Paul Wellstone - even when he voted for the Defense of Marriage Act.

But beyond an acceptance of the fact there is never going to be a candidate who aligns with me perfectly on every issue, there's something else that comes into play in my decision about whether or not to support a candidate/politician. Even more important to me are factors like: what are their values, what is their decision-making process, and what kind of person are they?

snip

In this regard, I often think about how President Obama talks about the fact that the "easy decisions" never reach his desk. If there is an obvious right and wrong, someone else usually makes the call before it gets to him. What a president is faced with is making choices between hard alternatives that often come down to bad and worse (ie, Syria). Or between high risk good and low risk neutral/bad.

snip

When making a tough call, nuance and perspective are pretty important ingredients to incorporate. If that makes me a blind supporter...so be it.

http://immasmartypants.blogspot.com/2014/03/why-i-became-obamabot.html

[Whisp]

1. K&R!

[sheshe2]

35. Thanks Whisp!

[Gravitycollapse]

2. We worship our politicians too much in this country.

I see being a politician as an extreme sacrifice where you will be chewed up and spit out and that is how it should be. Because if we aren't constantly harassing our political leaders, we aren't being intelligent citizens.

Both sides suffer from the kind of attitudes generally associated with cults and gangs. We too often spend our time only discussing the politician in respect to her or his rival. And that degrades political rhetoric.

But what I find particularly obnoxious is the tendency to say "if you aren't with us, you are against us." In other words, if you don't support our candidate, you're supporting the enemy. When in actuality the only reason why that might be the case is that the other side is making the same claim. It's a vicious cycle and the only way to overcome it is to stop taking part in it. Which may make ourselves vulnerable. But if we aren't willing to take that risk, we really don't give a damn about ourselves or this country. We just care about ensuring the other sides loses. And that is really a pathetic ideal to hold.

[Fumesucker]

3. "Politicians and diapers must be changed often"

"And for the same reason" -Mark Twain

[woo me with science]

10. Good post.

The two parties are largely both owned by the same wealthy elite now.

They exist now less to offer different directions than to serve as tools to keep us divided.

You are right. The propaganda works very hard to keep us focused on beating the other guy, rather than focusing on what would be best for the country.

It is a slick strategy by oligarchs, and IMO you're absolutely right that we have to break it.

[baldguy]

17. "The two parties are largely both owned by the same wealthy elite now."

Anyone who believes that is living in a sad, sick & twisted fantasy world. The simple fact is: One party is bent on destroying individual rights, liberties & freedom, the middle class, every historic progressive gain America has made over the last 80 yrs, and world peace in general...and One party is on track to try to preserve those things and expand upon them.

Now, the latter party may not be bold enough or be moving fast enough on the issues you care about for your liking - but you can't reasonably deny which side they're on.

[woo me with science]

52. Absolutely false. Overall, this country is moving relentlessly in the wrong direction.

Last edited Sun Mar 23, 2014, 10:17 AM - Edit history (3)

To claim that progress is being made but is merely incremental is overwhelmingly untrue in the most important areas of policy. We are being thrown bones on social issues but inequality has been escalated viciously through policy, the power of corporations is being relentlessly increased, our fundamental civil liberties are being dismantled, journalism is under assault, peaceful protesters are being surveilled and brutally suppressed, whistleblowers are being persecuted, our president has claimed the right to imprison indefinitely and even kill without due process, militarization of our police forces has been expanded, our public education system is being corporatized and even dismantled, corporate power over the internet is being enabled, our environment is being opened to drilling and fracking, and a new pipeline is on the horizon. In addition to all this, this government is engaging in mass surveillance against its own citizens and assaulting us with propaganda and disinformation.

Corporatists have been installed in virtually every area of government by our Democratic president.

The most significant policy proposal on the horizon is the most predatory free trade agreement in history, which will force Americans to compete with workers in Third World countries. It will kill jobs, reduce wages for over 90 percent of American workers, restrict freedom on the internet, make obtaining life-saving medications more difficult and more expensive, and allow multinational corporations to sue for profits and overrule national decisions on everything from wages to regulations for environment and safety. It is an assault on all of us, and it is unconscionable coming from a Democratic president. However, it is wholly consistent with this administration's long record of working on behalf of corporate interests.

I expected your response, though. The unwritten rules for Third Way messaging on this board require that any post like the one I wrote be countered immediately. We are relentlessly badgered to uphold the illusion that our corporate Democrats really do care about the same issues, principles, and goals that we do, even though their actions relentlessly pursue the opposite. As much as we are told by the corporate crew working this board that War is Peace and the chocolate ration has been increased, we have lived with our eyes open during these past five years, and we have watched first-hand what the flooding of our party with corporate money has done to its behavior...and to us.

Nothing is fixed until we are honest about what is happening. All the propaganda notwithstanding, more and more courageous liberals are standing up to do just that. Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Robert Reich....the launch of FirstLook....Bill Moyers' excellent work. The new statement at the Daily Kos that they will work to defeat the malignant influence of the Third Way in our party....These are all positive signs.

People who care deeply about this country are telling the truth about what we really are facing...the corporate hijacking of our party and our government....because the rose-colored glasses are malignant. The rose-colored glasses are a corporate lie, and they prevent real change.

[baldguy]

79. So you think Barack Obama is the same as Dick Cheney. Or worse.

Like I said - you live in a sad, sick & twisted fantasy world. And you're only helping the people you claim to oppose.

[grasswire]

82. pathetic

just pathetic

[baldguy]

84. The previous poster certainly is.

Knee-jerk doofuses usually are.

[grasswire]

97. name-calling.

How mature.

[bobduca]

182. disgusting response, but expected.

Nothing but personal attacks from you.

[baldguy]

183. Suffering from a little l'esprit de l'escalier, are we?

[bobduca]

184. No, more like suffering fools gladly

[Feron]

118. I agree with you.

Some apparently never learned from Clinton. Yes Clinton is charismatic, but under his presidency we also got NAFTA, welfare 'reform', repeal of Glass-Steagall, etc. It would appear that bad ideas are proposed by Republicans and Democrats enact them. Social issues are a device used to distract and divide. It's a drawn out version of good cop, bad cop with those at the top playing the long game.

The evidence is there for those who don't have a Teen Beat view of politicians.

I don't think Obamabot is an apt term. Stan is a better one.

Obama the person seems like an alright guy, but his politics are undoubtedly right-wing. The Overton Window of politics has been moved so far right in this country that even a person like Nixon would now perceived as a socialist.

[GoneFishin]

128. +1000000. Awesome and well articulated post woo me. This should be an OP. n/t

[Mojorabbit]

131. Well said!

I care more about this country than I ever will for any politician.

[cui bono]

156. "Corporatists have been installed in virtually every area of government by our Democratic president.

"

This is so important and cannot be denied. And must not be overlooked.

And of course TPP - even though it "doesn't exist yet".

Thank you for this post, and your many other most important posts.

[Kurovski]

168. Succintly put,WMWS.

Thank you.

Add my vote of support to see our situation with clearer vision.

[snappyturtle]

179. Actions speak louder than words. We should well know that by now. nt

[truebrit71]

180. This is one of the best, most succinct, on-point posts

...i have ever seen. Fucking brilliant. I couldn't agree with it more...

[psiman]

54. In Agreement

I vote for the party that contains some elements that are substantially to my right, and I do so cheerfully while working to change the party from within.

This sets me up for a lot of disappointments, but the alternative is to be ruled by a criminal gang. That's kind of crummy, and I grumble a lot, but that is the state of affairs until we can shift the political center of gravity away from the abyss of another Bush administration.

Which does differentiate me from some in the liberal/left coalition. Over at the Daily Kos there is a guy whose tag line is "it rubs the lotion on its skin or it gets the Republicans again." Evidently he is so angry at the Democrats 'using his vote and giving him nothing in return' that he literally considers the party to be a gang of flesh eating psychopaths.

You can't reason with people like that, and from the sleep of reason monsters are born.

[cheapdate]

93. Yes. There's no point in arguing with a political nihislist.

[psiman]

169. The Big Lebowski

These men are nihilists, Danny, you have nothing to be afraid of.

[VanillaRhapsody]

98. Agree!

How anyone can still think like that is beyond me...there is ONE party that serves their masters the Corporate elite....I think we know which one that is...

[Drunken Irishman]

151. The two parties are more un-alike than ever before...

You say 'now' - but the two party system was entirely run by the elites generations ago. In fact, politics wasn't even ideological back then - it was entirely regional. You had liberal Democrats and conservative Democrats and liberal Republicans and conservative Republicans. Grover Cleveland would be a Republican today, and I'm pretty sure Teddy Roosevelt wouldn't align with the Republicans nowadays. Calvin Coolidge would fit in with the libertarian, small government laissez-faire minded wing of the GOP, however, his Secretary of Commerce wouldn't (Hoover, who, despite his flaws, wasn't nearly as passive on economic issues as Coolidge).

Both parties were pretty identical from the top to bottom. They were controlled generally by the same groups, too. They disagreed on minor issues, but with the lack of any type of social conflict to drive the ideologicals, a Republican president wasn't much different than a Democratic president. Case in point: The three presidents who helped define the Progressive Era: Teddy, William Howard Taft and Woodrow Wilson. Teddy was a progressive, Taft a conservative and Wilson also a progressive. Wilson wasn't a progressive because he was a Democrat and Taft wasn't a conservative because he was a Republican - as back then the Democrats weren't truly that progressive of a party, and neither was the Republican Party. It was just each candidate on the national level had their own ideological views - parties weren't, as I said, ideological.

That slowly changed in the 1930s, 40s and 50s - but even then, many Republicans were still liberal and many Democrats were still conservative (while you also had many conservative Republicans and liberal Democrats).

The parties only started becoming more defined, and dramatically different, with the inclusion of social issues into campaigns. Abortion, the death penalty, marriage equality, guns, poverty, race relations - these issues drove the ideological divide. The Democrats became the champion of a great deal of those causes, the Republicans came to oppose 'em.

So, I disagree. The two parties are more different today ideologically than at any point in our country's history. But that's because, for a huge chunk of our country's history, party was region and not ideological.

[840high]

22. Good post.

[DevineBovine]

29. Great post, thanks!

Thanks for clearly articulating this very important and on-going problem. I don't believe anything other than strictly regulated taxpayer funded elections will end this vicious cycle.

[Vashta Nerada]

77. Excellent post.

If anyone doesn't know what you're talking about, they need to listen to this song:

There's nothing worse than politician worship, no matter what side you're on.

[VanillaRhapsody]

99. ah Libertarians...

[fascisthunter]

152. Ahhh... corporatist

[VanillaRhapsody]

154. You do realize that is not the opposite of Libertarian right?

So you agree it is Libertarian.....you do realize even Teabaggers are often Libertarian!

I don't call myself a Corporatist... am not a fan of Free Market Capitalism like Libertarians are..nor am I a fan of Fascism.....I am a Socialist Democrat thanks for asking!

[bigwillq]

177. Good post.

[gulliver]

4. This is well written.

Thanks for posting.

[Control-Z]

5. K&R

"...when I find myself disagreeing with him on an issue, my approach is to first try to understand rather than critique. As I do that, most often I find much more nuance and perspective on the issues than I had originally seen. When making a tough call, nuance and perspective are pretty important ingredients to incorporate. If that makes me a blind supporter...so be it. "

[Bluenorthwest]

6. Anyone who continues in unwaivering support when a poltician votes to deny

rights to others is not a good person. If the rights were being denied to a minority the author respected or saw as equal, they would not brag about supporting such a thing.
Politicians over people, over human rights. Barf.

[frazzled]

7. Who precisely voted to deny rights to others?

I'm not sure who you're talking about, what bill, or when.

[Bluenorthwest]

8. The author flauts unwaivering support for Wellstone and his DOMA vote

which was a bigoted vote cast out of ignorance and homophobia. In my book, a vote against anyone's rights is a deal breaker. It is not something to brag about. It is a bad thing that people continue to support openly bigoted politicians even if they are 'good on other issues'. If that was a vote to deny rights to any other minority....

[frazzled]

12. He was my senator

Paul Wellstone was one of the greats (even with his admitted faults), but he's dead--killed suddenly and too young in a plane crash--so there's no need for anyone to vote for him again.

That vote, which took place in 1996, was terrible. But it passed the Senate 85-14. Paul Wellstone was not alone. Only 14 Democrats voted against it: most of them are dead (Ted Kennedy, Daniel Inouye, Paul Simon) or no longer in the Senate (John Kerry, Bob Kerrey, Charles Robb).
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/104-1996/s280

It surprises me that Bob Kerrey was someone who voted against that bill. Good for him. But otherwise, there wasn't much I agreed with him on, at all. Though I'd still have voted for him in Nebraska, and we'd be better off with him today than the Republican.

John Kerry became my senator in 1999, after I moved from Minnesota to Massachusetts. I thought I would never--EVER--forgive him for his vote on Iraq. It was unforgivable, really, and he knew it. It was a bad political calculation. Still, he didn't just vote against rights; his vote helped to take people's entire lives away, forever. People died because of it. I worked for another candidate in the Democratic primaries (still the right thing to have done, imo), but when he became the presidential nominee, I not only voted for Kerry, I worked on his campaign. I'd do that again, too.

If you are a one issue voter, be a one issue voter. I think that is narrow, especially if you end up with someone worse, just to "punish" an otherwise decent politician for a particular vote. There is not a single politician out there I have ever agreed with on every single issue. Not one. One has to take the full measure of a politician, across his or her votes and across their careers. No one is perfect. Not you or not I, either.

[Bluenorthwest]

123. Gee thanks for the respectful Straightsplaining!!!!

How dare you lecture me on history of my own rights. Who taught you to accuse LGBT people of being 'single issue voters'? Are we talking about MY vote? No. How dare you. The subject of the OP is not 'how we force ourselves to vote for bigots' it is 'Why I became a bot'. What is a bot? An unthinking supporter who supports persons not principles. A person who does that is a bad person.
'No matter what they do, I support them'. That's what you are saying. No matter what. You will defend them, you will try to tell their victims they were really good men. Wellstone was bigot. Bigots suck eggs. There is not 'He was a bigot, but also a good man'. A bigot, that is his legacy. You can see him differently, falsely, I do not have to agree with you.

[frazzled]

133. Gee, your animus is so helpful

All I'm saying is, if you withheld your vote in 1990 or 1996 for Paul Wellstone (who wrote in his book, Conscience of a Liberal, that he regretted his DOMA vote and had been mistaken), you were de facto acting to install the Republican, Bushie Rudy Boschwitz: someone who was never going to regret a DOMA vote and change. Or maybe, to protest that vote in 1996, you voted for the crazy-ass Reform Party candidate, Dean Barkley, an accolyte of Jesse Ventura and Ross Perot.

Paul Wellstone, had he not been killed, would have gone on, like his colleagues, to repeal DOMA. He died before he could. You can curse his name all you want and ignore the work he did for labor, the environment, peace: you're entitled. But YOUR vote or refusal to vote always has consequences.

So stop gaysplainin me: I don't need it. It sounds bigoted, and I am secure enough in my long-time LGBT rights creds that I can, in return, say: I do not have to agree with you on this.

[sheshe2]

14. No, she says she still supports the person

There is a lot of truth in the old adage: If two people agree on everything, one of them is unnecessary. That's what allows Democrats to consider FDR one of our greatest presidents, even though he is responsible for the Japanese internment camps. Its also why I never wavered in my support of Paul Wellstone - even when he voted for the Defense of Marriage Act.

Even after a bad call. It was a bigoted vote. If he was still alive, he would probably have changed his views. That is not unwavering support. Paul did many good things. Her point is no one makes the perfect choice, they are wrong sometimes, Bluenorthwest.

[Bluenorthwest]

124. She says her support never wavered. You say 'that's not unwavering' but

the author says her support 'never wavered' in the face of a hugely bigoted action. The author would also vote for racists, clearly, because actions do not matter, it is all about being a 'Team Bot'.

Mindless support for bigoted people and law does harm to human beings.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

9. The Obamabots have never come across as issue driven...

it's all about personality for them. Loopy first paragraph. This crap blogger would support something like Chained CPI because she admires Obama's decision-making process and he seems like a good family man? No thanks.

[babylonsister]

11. I haven't even read the article, but you are full of

crap. It is NOT all about personality, but about what the guy has done so far, which is substantial considering the blowback he's gotten and endured, and the disrespect. Unprecedented.

For me his legacy will be Obamacare. That is huge, for anyone.

If you think it's all about personality, you are mistaken, though him having a great one doesn't hurt.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

13. Backatcha, babyl-on. (n/t)

[babylonsister]

25. Great comeback. Derp. nt

[WorseBeforeBetter]

26. And a hearty whargarrrbll to you...

at least that's how the blog reads.

[Andy823]

18. +1000

I wonder what "issues" motivate the anti Obama crowd? When people try and paint the president as someone who has not accomplished anything, say he is just like Bush, attack him constantly for things that have not even happened, or day in and day out post things that are "all" negative about him, it makes me wonder just what their agenda really is.

I appreciate what he has done to help those who need health insurance, such as my daughter who has a pre-existing condition that would have prevented her from either getting health care, or would have cost her a fortune in premiums. I appreciate his taking the mess he was left by Bush and bringing this country back, even though we still have ways to go he is doing the best he can with the republicans fighting him on a daily bases. I appreciate the fact he has gotten things done to spite of the opposition he receives from the right, and from many on the left.

I think that people have right to disagree with him, it's their choice, but when they never say anything positive, but only complain, well then I think they have a problem. Supporting the president on a discussion board for democrats should not be a "bad thing". I will never agree with everything that any politician does, but I do know that there is no person on this earth that will fit my idea of the "perfect" politician, it just isn't logical to think that, so I am willing to support those who do their best, help those who need it, and not demand any kind of a purity test before I vote for them.

[babylonsister]

23. Andy823, you

are a prince. You expressed my thoughts precisely! Thanks!

[sheshe2]

39. Thank you Andy.

Well said.

And

I think that people have right to disagree with him, it's their choice, but when they never say anything positive, but only complain, well then I think they have a problem.

I agree. They become the problem and not the solution.

[cheapdate]

100. I'm with you on that Andy823.

I wonder the same thing myself. The administration's accomplishments and positive achievements are always dismissed as smoke screens or distractions, or else as inexcusable failures because the problem (discrimination, poverty, unemployment, etc.) didn't vanish completely from the face of the earth.

The president is in many ways a conventional politician with conventional views on banking and finance, national security, trade policy, etc. That's who he is. His perspective and mine are oceans apart in many places.

But time and time again the president's actions give me a smile and I'm reminded of why I admire this president. For example, I smiled big when the president appointed Natural Resources Defense Council President Frances Beineke to the commission on the BP oil spill. If that alone didn't tell you there's a new sheriff in town, nothing will.

[VanillaRhapsody]

101. Its just easier to be Contrarian...then you don't have to do anything...

If you don't support anyone...then no one expects you to GOTV or to donate to campaigns....All you have to do is complain about damn near every candidate. When asked why you don't find better candidates rather than try to verbally beat the current candidates "into submission" or why they don't themselves run for office...they turn tail and run...why because claiming "both sides are the same" saves them from having to take any responsibility no matter what happens....easy peasy.

[KittyWampus]

121. Cynics hate actual progress. I contradicts their world view.

[treestar]

108. +2000

When they never say anything positive. That's a bit strange on a liberal board.

[sheshe2]

33. They vote for fail, babylonsister.

They have no time to open their eyes to see. Their hands are over their ears.

Deaf Dumb and Blind.

It's piss moan and whine, he failed me ( insert wringing of hands, tearing out hair and hair on fire narratives) they campaigned for him, they voted for him yet be sorely betrayed me.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

42. I live in North Carolina.

Quite frankly, Barack Obama is the least of my concerns, so spare us the hackneyed piss-and-moan, hair-on-fire lecture.

Tell Smarty enough with the navel-gazing -- focus on serious ISSUES, like Senator Kay Hagan's vulnerability. A majority in this state hate Obamacare and they're going to take it out on her, with the help of the deep-pocketed Kochsuckers. Does this blogger do ANYTHING besides defend Obama? (Don't bother answering that, I don't really care.)

Seriously. MIDTERMS 2014.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

46. you're going to hate this, but

PBO said the most important thing right now is midterms, politically speaking.

Get the teabaggies out. GOTV

[WorseBeforeBetter]

51. Why would I hate that? I want to see him...

and other high-profile Democrats come out SWINGING and help vulnerable senators. Especially since the ACA, O's signature legislation, is causing much of that vulnerability. I want to see him proudly embrace the Democratic brand, and let know voters what he and the party stand for. DW-S will be here in March or April, so that's a start. I miss Howard Dean. That's who we need.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

71. my apologies, then. I misread you.

If we want to make any headway, we need to get people to the polls. Pukes are happy if we're bashing PBO and other dems and each other and feeling scattered and demoralised.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

145. No apologies necessary, but thanks.

There are so many problems in NC, I don't even know where begin. One is that the state Democratic party is a colossal mess. Another is that thanks to gerrymandering, we lost seats in 2010 even though Democrats outvoted Republicans. At the national level, Kay Hagan is no prize, but she's better than Thom Tillis and Dr. Teabagger (Greg Brannon).

Christensen: NC politics changing radically

The conventional wisdom about North Carolina politics from 20 years ago is now about as useful as a rotary telephone. Tar Heel politics has been transformed in recent decades with breathtaking speed because of several factors: explosive population growth, urbanization and the rise of the unaffiliated voter.

Rural vote now GOP: Rural vote now GOP: For decades, the Democratic formula for winning elections in North Carolina was simple, Jackson said. Democrats would win wide margins in the Triangle and Eastern North Carolina, battle the Republicans even in the Triad and try to limit the losses everywhere else in the Piedmont and the west, including Charlotte. But that has been turned upside down. The new Democratic strategy is to pile up the votes in the urban areas, including Charlotte, and try to hold down the Republican vote in the rural areas. Today, 60 percent of the registered voters are in the largest 20 counties.

....

Rise of the independents: The fastest-growing group of voters is unaffiliated voters. They already outnumber Republicans in 35 counties, outnumber Democrats in 12 counties and outnumber both parties in three counties. If current trends continue, unaffiliateds will surpass the number of registered Republican voters in a majority of North Carolina counties by 2016.

Since 2010, the number of registered Democratic voters in the state has dropped by 4,711; the number of Libertarians has grown by 13,216; the number of Republicans has grown by 33,752, and the number of unaffiliated voters has grown by 242,818.

....

http://www.newsobserver.com/2014/03/15/3705103/christensen-nc-politics-changing.html#storylink=cpy

I want Democrats to come out swinging, for politicians to embrace the Democratic brand and explain to voters why it's good for them. I just don't see it happening. I'm plastering this Moral March pic all over DU... it gives me hope!

[sheshe2]

53. Gotta say

Your attitude sucks.

There are a lot of people out there that support all the races we need to win. I am going to do my small part, contributions when I can. I damn well don't have much money to give.

Yet I will do anything I can.

However a nasty negative response from you turns people off. Why do you do that? It won't get you anywhere. Try some positive for a change. Don't just trash the blogger and people that want to help. That is no way to win an election.

Yes GOTV 2014. Many of us have been saying that for some time here.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

63. "Negative"? Realistic.

I don't think many "Obamabots" understand the gravity of the Republican takeover of North Carolina. DECADES of progress were destroyed in a matter of MONTHS. The takeover occurred, in part, because of hatred of Obamacare. I hope folks are paying attention to the 4 (or 5?) vulnerable senators, because November 4, 2014 may be a colossally rude awakening. Evidently Obama is paying attention; hopefully he'll get down here and sell his signature legislation.

I don't see where the blogger is "helping." All I see is navel-gazing and Obama cheerleading. But if you think that's the way to win elections, so be it.

[sheshe2]

73. Sadly you misunderstand the "obamabots"

You don't think we understand?

You don't think we are informed on the issues? Why? Because we don't sit on this board and whine all the time.

Have you read or responded to the posts in support of the people that are running? It's late so here are a few off the top of my head. Wendy Davis D-TX Governor, Alison L. Grimes D-Kentucky...

More

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_elections,_2014

You say Negative = realistic. Maybe so. My belief? Positive = progress.

Why don't you post some great positive threads about who is running in NC, state the issues and ask for support. If one fails post another and another. Stop being so negative and condescending. We are in this together, don't you understand that?

Do it now. Then vote 2014!

[treestar]

110. You need to learn to do Obama cheerleading

And Obamacare cheerleading. Those people who hate it don't know why, just that Fox News told them.

Your attitude makes no sense. You say you want the D to win, but don't want to talk up Obama and Obamacare.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

146. Why are you assuming I "don't want to talk up ... Obamacare"?

Obama's got the bully pulpit, he needs to SELL this legislation. He didn't back in 2009, and let Teabaggers define it. That hasn't turned out so well.

I tend to approach it from an economic/jobs angle; sometimes it gets through to folks, sometimes not.

More than 500 jobs already lost from NC Gov, General Assembly refusal to expand Medicaid
http://pulse.ncpolicywatch.org/2013/11/27/more-than-500-jobs-already-lost-from-nc-gov-general-assembly-refusal-to-expand-medicaid/#sthash.GMcO5XNe.dpuf

[treestar]

167. Are you going to rely on Obama alone?

He has some Presidenting to do. We can help sell it on the streets in the real world.

[treestar]

109. You need to be making Obamacare positive

Yes, you need to defend Obama there, and Obamacare, to help the Democrat to win.

[babylonsister]

48. I don't and won't. I remember dimson. I am

very happy with my President. He's not a magician, but he is making the most of a most difficult situation (including the color of his skin which he cannot control).

He's accomplished a lot despite everyone; major props from me always!

[Skidmore]

120. I'd go further.

They want fail and are actively seeking to ensure it happens. If truely wanting to tack left is the goal, then destroying the lives of so many will not endear them to the people they seek to attract. It is at best naive and, at worst, cynical to the point of being an evil calculation to wilfully subject the greater society to such a vicious assault. It says to me that they have no trust in their own ideas or do not intend to act on them if they are successful in breaking the back of the left. I have a deep distrust of anyone who gleefully delivers viciousness and shows no concern for the outcomes and is righteously contemptful.

[Bobbie Jo]

38. +1000

[Logical]

158. LOL, not reading is your trademark! n-t

[babylonsister]

170. Excuse me? Why? You have no

reason to insult me.

[sheshe2]

16. Never issue driven?

Are you serious?

We are more issue driven than most. It is cry, whine, weep and wail against this President from the right and Gawd help us from some people here.

The Obamabots? We want Obamacare, nope not perfect but it is one hell of a start. No pre-existing conditions and no lifetime caps! More, so much more for so many people in desperate need.

See, you just want to focus on the negatives. Why not something positive, sadly your glass seems to be half full and will remain that way.

As for this "crap blogger", your quote, she is spot on and you are wrong.

Because of all that, when I find myself disagreeing with him on an issue, my approach is to first try to understand rather than critique. As I do that, most often I find much more nuance and perspective on the issues than I had originally seen. When making a tough call, nuance and perspective are pretty important ingredients to incorporate.

And where the hell you found and dredged up Chained CPI (and her support of it??????) is beyond me!

This President has done much for this nation. I will post links if you are unaware of the progress that he has made, or you could google the facts yourself.

[Andy823]

19. +1000 nt

[WorseBeforeBetter]

21. LOL @ "cry, whine, weep and wail."

So tedious. Couldn't make it past that.

[sheshe2]

28. You are correct

LOL @ "cry, whine, weep and wail."
View profile
So tedious. Couldn't make it past that.

If that is all you are capable of doing, then we fail. Is that what you want?

Sorry you could not get past that part. Listening and learning is a great part of our existence. If you close your mind and your ears, you become deaf dumb and blind. That is exactly why WE FAIL.

[babylonsister]

50. Don't waste your time; that

is a waste, and I think on purpose. Better to focus on the positive. Like us! We are, and I'm so okay with that!

[sheshe2]

55. Okay, breath out. Sigh~

Yup, the positive will win, then negative is doomed to fail.

We got positive and I/ We will use it.

2014GOTV We can do this!







Thanks bsis!

[babylonsister]

57. Make a new thread for this one-perfect!! DU can do a lot of good, and

this will help! Post it a lot!

[sheshe2]

60. I think I will, I found a few others to add!

[jeff47]

24. That poster is mistaking themself for others. (nt)

[treestar]

111. Try to understand and get the nuance on the issue

I do that all the time, and get called Obamabot by those who want to make up their minds to the worst right away. We see that all the time on DU. Someone thinks they have come up with the one thing that will sink Obama and/or the Ds forever and then gets mad when there is any pushback and looking for the nuances of the issue. Then most of the time it turns out to be a tempest in a teapot. The frustrated negative Nellie then goes on to find some other outrage.

[DebJ]

89. The blogger never said she would support issues that she otherwise would not support

just because she approves of the person supporting those issues. She said she would look at the issue again, re-analyze, try better to understand other factors....but did NOT say that she would support such issues............


"Because of all that, when I find myself disagreeing with him on an issue, my approach is to first try to understand rather than critique. As I do that, most often I find much more nuance and perspective on the issues than I had originally seen. When making a tough call, nuance and perspective are pretty important ingredients to incorporate. If that makes me a blind supporter...so be it."

Your comment reminds me of others I have heard, such as "They only voted for Obama because he is black."

[treestar]

106. As it said, no two people agree about everything

It doesn't mean they support the chained CPI.

But you can't support anyone then, because you will always find one thing to disagree with another person about.

It may make you feel superior, but that is all you'll get out of it.

[Iliyah]

15. K & R

[blkmusclmachine]

20. Blah.

[sheshe2]

74. Yup!

Hold that thought tight as we vote in 2014. With your attitude we lose!

[Sarah Ibarruri]

27. Not just that. We already tried the "Nader tactic" - voting against the Democrats

at a time when dividing Democratic votes were indispensable to the Republicans to get their candidate in office. Naderites assured me that it was a great tactic, but provided NO explanation how it would work. I suppose it was some sort of secret.

Instead, it was a DISASTER for our country. It put in office a Neo-Con, who did incredible damage to our country, and strengthened the Republicans.

I watched that whole episode very, very closely. Apparently, some are just chomping at the bit to repeat it and get a Repuke president in office again.

[Gravitycollapse]

31. Blaming those who voted for Nader is such a tired trope.

They wouldn't have voted for Nader if Gore reflected their values. That is the fault of the Democratic party and the Gore campaign, not those who supported Nader.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

32. Are you kidding? It's deja vu all over again. nt

[Gravitycollapse]

34. Party loyalty only matters if the party is reflecting your values.

We talk quite a bit about the base for Bush fundamentally voting against their personal interest. The same goes for other candidates. And that a group of voters decided that Gore did not match their values and goals is not an indictment of those voters but an indictment of the Democratic party, the Gore campaign and Gore personally.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

36. Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. nt

[Gravitycollapse]

40. Doing the right thing and expecting others to join you is not a sign of mental disturbance...

It's a sign of integrity.

Groupthink is a sign of stupidity, not insight.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

44. Again, doing the failed thing a second time, is just stupid and damaging. nt

[Gravitycollapse]

45. So if doing the right thing fails, according to your logic, it was the wrong thing? That's absurd.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

62. Sorry, I'm not willing to sacrifice my country. Your desire to put Repukes in office out of spite

is simply more Naderite tactics.

[Gravitycollapse]

64. Are you accusing me of trying to put Republicans in office?

[DebJ]

90. GravityCollapse, with all due respect.... I've seen you on here a lot and though

I don't have a mind that will hold the specifics, I get a positive feel when I read your name...

but if you do not support a Dem candidate that is on the ballot, then who are you supporting?
I'm confused....unless there is a 3rd party candidate or an independent with more than a snowballs
chance in hell of winning, then what? I'm confused.

[Gravitycollapse]

92. That will be a question that I can only answer next election cycle.

I've voted straight party ever since the 08 elections (which was my first legal election cycle). Local, state and national.

But I'm in the process of changing my viewpoint on the subject. And I see validity in the arguments for 3rd party candidates. Or, at the very least, alternatives in the Democratic primaries.

What I really don't see, however, is validity in compromising one's morals to toe the party line. That frightens me because even if it is done with the best of intentions, the long term consequences could be catastrophic. But I'm not sure it's always done with the best of intentions. I think many people toe the line because they care only about the other side losing. And, as I said upthread, I find that detestable. And I think it represents a fundamental problem in the Democratic party.

If all we do is vote to ensure Republicans can't win, we only achieve the aesthetic pleasure of victory when in reality we've lost our moral compass.

[DebJ]

95. Thanks for an honest answer! More participation in the primaries is definitely a needed focus.

The real choices are in the primaries. More people need to run, too, but I sure understand why they do not.

For me, there is no matter of 'compromising my morals', because I look at all of the issues, the entire package,
and I have never seen a Republican who would support enough of my positions that I could vote for them. There
are just so many, many issues that are so important to me: environment, education, wealth distribution, union
support, voting rights...on and on and on. There is no way that any Republican would ever support more of my
positions than a Democrat would.

My viewpoint on what is a Dem and what is a Republican got shook up when I moved ten years ago from Maryland to Pennsylvania: a Pennsylvanian Dem is almost a Maryland Republican........... but that only makes it all the more likely I could never vote for a Republican here...they are outright evil, and blatantly so. Totally committed to a corporately-enslaved population that is totally uneducated, and without proper food, clothing, shelter, or medicine.

Also, the entire Republican Party is built around everyone in the party supporting everything in the party line, marching
in total lock-step like the Nazis, or the party makes sure you exit as quickly as possible.........it's a machine, stamping out Lego men who all say and do the same thing. I really haven't witnessed that in the Democratic Party... the Democratic Party's failing is the opposite, getting together on anything.

We now have the capabilities, via the internet and television broadcasting...where the air-time theoretically belongs to US, that we could eliminate the parties entirely, and just have individuals run by broadcasting their positions on the internet and on tv.........kill reality tv and that crap every evening in prime time for a few months, and let candidates speak and debate without 'moderators' who kill all real debate...........but neither the Dems nor the Repukes would allow that to happen, and certainly not their Corporate Masters. That would take a blood-spilling revolution......... I eagerly sign ANY third-party persons petition to run, because even getting on a ballot in Pennsylvania if you are neither Dem or Repub is almost completely impossible in Pa...might as well be in Russia...and Putin's concept of 'democracy' just doesn't work for me, either.

On edit: regarding the capabilities, I forgot to include outlaw/eliminate all public media advertising for candidates...fliers only.

[treestar]

116. That's what you have to do in politics

You can't expect your morals and your moral stands to have any effect. It is not compromising them. We are trying to elect a government. The best one possible. It does not compromise your morals to support candidates who may disagree with you on this or that. You can't get anyone in office who agrees 100% with you. Even if you are in office, you don't get to decree everything that agrees with your morals.

The Tea Party is just as concerned about other people's morals being just like theirs, yet they compromise to vote for someone impure and they get out there and do it. They actually though McGramps or Mittens were very liberal. Yet they get out there and vote and campaign for them.

[treestar]

115. You are dodging the issue by playing the victim

You realize that in reality the effect is exactly what SI described. You know that and can't defend it, so you play the victim. Oh poor you accused of wanting Republicans in office. The Democrats aren't good enough for you. So you won't vote for them. So what do you think will be the result?

It does not push the Democrats to the left. Doing the same thing over and over and it not working is the definition of insanity.

[Gravitycollapse]

162. I could only play the victim card if I supported Nader.

Which I did not. I never have. But I understand the motivation for people who vote third party. And I find it despicable to blame Gore's loss on leftists who voted for Nader. That is a despicable thing to do.

And I find it especially disgusting that a member of this board would accuse another member of trying to get Republicans elected. Apparently irony is dead.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

140. Accusing? I'm telling you that's what the Naderite tactic did, and this is Part 2 of Naderiting

Don't tell me you're actually denying this.

[Gravitycollapse]

160. People who voted for Nader wanted him to win.

Just like everyone else who votes for their preferred candidate.

[grasswire]

94. preposterous assertion. nt

[Sarah Ibarruri]

139. Not at all. The Naderite tactic has been tried and brought us nothing but crap

Please explain your solution, and please make it one that will actually work.

[Gravitycollapse]

163. I think this conversation would work better if you weren't so condescending.

I'm serious, by the way. I've seen you do this before and it has a chilling effect on dialogue. If you want to talk to people about these kinds of things, mockery and accusation are exactly what you shouldn't be doing.

[calimary]

59. And gets you a republi-CON back in the White House.

I say again - I'll take a shitty Democrat over ANY republi-CON - ANY day. Yes. It does come down to that. I do NOT want ANY republi-CON in the White House. I do not want ANY republi-CON slithering in because our side couldn't get it together and conquer as a united front. I do NOT want ANY republi-CON picking the next Supreme Court justices. How'd the last couple of rounds work out for everybody, 'eh? You want ANOTHER scalia or thomas or roberts or alito? You REALLY want to risk that? Those bastards are appointed for life, so we're STILL suffering under antonin scalia and fucking damn reagan appointed him! You want the PNAC back in the Defense Department or the National Security Advisor's office? You want the lovers of strip-mining and unrestrained oil drilling and clear-cutting back in the Interior Department? The ramifications of ANY candidate with an "R" after his/her name getting into the Oval Office terrifies me! And if some independent or protest candidate's gonna try to get in there and muck up the works, and thereby take votes away from the leading candidate with the "D" after his/her name and make it more likely that an "R" can slither in, I'm NOT gonna play along!!!! NO MATTER HOW MUCH I ACTUALLY MIGHT LIKE the protest candidate! Yes, like a Bernie Sanders.

All ralph nader did was peel off enough votes from Al Gore here and there to make it close enough for bush/cheney to steal it. THAT is what happened. I don't care how it's rationalized or excused way. THAT IS WHAT HAPPENED. Ross Perot did it to the CONS twice - in 1992 and 1996, taking enough votes away from bush1 and then from Bob Dole so that Bill Clinton won. John Anderson did it to our side when he ran as an independent in the Carter vs reagan election, and that screwed Carter. reagan didn't win by a landslide the first time.

We have to stick to a sure bet if we're gonna keep the White House and protect everything we've all worked for and all the gains we've made over the years. Unfortunately, we don't have a choice. Because the alternative is splintering our voting bloc so the bad guys can slither in while we're busy fighting one another.

Hey, I wish it were different, too! But it isn't. I'm just being realistic. That's what we're stuck with, and that's how we have to win it.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

61. I agree. Any Democrat, any day. The Repukes created a horror in this country

They are the enemy. Anyone who doesn't see that, is a fool or a Republican.

[treestar]

114. Politics is about coalitions

Not standing for your ideals. You may as well have a war then. There are sizable, and a majority of people, who don't agree with you values. If you can't work with them, you are doomed to schism and smaller and smaller groups of increasing irrelevance. It sounds heroic, but it's just a fantasy. At least we aren't still burning people at the stake for having "wrong values."

[Bobbie Jo]

41. Thread win. nt

[Fumesucker]

107. Exactly, the Democrats do not adquately reflect the values of a group of voters

And then blame those voters for voting for a different candidate.

Insanity.

[treestar]

113. Notice how pompous that post was

Reflect THEIR values. Sounds just like the Tea Party. Our way or destruction, we are so pure.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

138. Okay, explain in detail please. There's clearly something I'm missing. nt

[treestar]

166. Right not I'm not sure what I meant

I think the idea of a candidate having to hold the values of the voter struck me as unreasonably self centered. Al Gore had pretty good liberal credentials and was famous for his promoting protection of the environment. So what their problem could be with his "values" I don't think likely to be reasonable. The word "values" makes me think of right wingers expecting the world to reflect theirs.

[Gravitycollapse]

164. Everyone has values which they vote by. Republicans and Tea Partiers...

Just happen to possess bad values.

[treestar]

112. Gore had to reflect their values?

No, Gore needed a majority.

If Gore didn't reflect a Democrat or liberal's values, then I would say you are too far left to demand the rest of the country do as you say. You are a minority. You have to get together with somebody to go anywhere.

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

30. Britney was a Bushbot

I don't think proclaiming that you're a "bot" puts you in a winning position.

[Lars39]

43. Used to mean something like being a mindless worker.

Not complimentary at all.

[sheshe2]

49. It's a pet name that the right and a few here have given us.

Did you bother to read the article?

Amazing isn't it! Some people here actually support this President. OMG! DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND. Who knew! Not blindly, yet the support of issues that they believe in.

Obama’s list of accomplishments included an equal pay law, expanding hate crimes laws, health care reform, revamping student loans, increasing national service programs, the “cash for clunkers” program, preventing a financial collapse, signing the single largest tax cut, reforming Wall Street, appointing the first Hispanic justice to the Supreme Court, signing a new nuclear weapons treaty with Russia, providing first responders who were sickened after the 9/11 with benefits, and repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

“All of that was accomplished in the first two years of his presidency,” Maddow said. “Then came the 2010 mid-terms, and the House went to the Republicans, and they pledged to oppose everything the president did.”

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/11/05/maddow-reviews-accomplishments-of-obamas-historic-presidency/

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

56. I'm not an Obamabot!

I understand and am aware of all that. But as I just posted in another thread...

Obama jumped the shark for me when he brought in the Rubinites before his inauguration. I don't even know if the "Obamabots" (their word not mine) were even paying attention.

Back to Clintonian Third Way.

So much for Hope and Change.

I don't take the article seriously because, (1) the title obviously, and (2) her "Barack Obama is not perfect. Sometimes he gets things wrong and sometimes his strategies fail to accomplish his goals. He is a human being who has taken on what I believe is the toughest job on the planet" language. That's just sad and Obamabotty.


So do you think I hate him now?

Do you think I believe he's a POS because I have had a problem with him since before his inauguration?!!?!

Because it's an "all good" or "all bad" world at DU? So I must not support Obama because my criticism of him doesn't sound botty, like, "he is not perfect and sometimes he gets things wrong and sometimes his strategies fail to accomplish his goals but he is a human being"?

Did I get your number?

[Cha]

69. Oh, I dunno.. Glenn Greenwald started hurling that at Obama Supporters and

of course his little minions followed suit.. so, we turned it around on his stupid ass and said. Okay, yeah whatever. Better than being a fucking glennbot.

[Agnosticsherbet]

37. Obama is better than the alternative, much better. I do not regret my vote.

I don't agree with all his decisions.

If a Democrat wins, no matter who he or she might be, that person will be better than the Republican alternative.

There is no such thing as an ideal candidate.

An ideal candidate would have too much integrity to run for an office that requires compromise on basic moral and ethical principals.

[Thinkingabout]

47. Well, you have to call us as you see us, guess Obamabot for me.

Though I may never like all of his decisions I have confidence he makes the correct decisions. We may not know all the reasons for his decisions.

[babylonsister]

58. That's called trust; I have it also, and it's a fine thing. nt

[calimary]

66. Fair enough. Call me an Obamabot, too.

As much as he may frustrate me, and sometimes he does, he's still LIGHTYEARS better than what the bad guys tried to shove down our throats. And most of the time he's NOT terribly frustrating to me anyway. Overall, I happen to think he's pretty terrific, and at his worst, he's STILL better than anything they've got over on the Dark Side. I mean really. Think about it. sarah palin a heartbeat away from the presidency? Are you freakin' kidding me???? President romney with his "corporations are people, my friend" mentality - IN THE OVAL OFFICE???? CRIMINY!!!!!!! If you didn't like Tim Geithner, MAN would you have hated who romney might have chosen for Treasury Secretary. YEEEESH!!!!! It would have been a BILLION times worse, guaranteed!

[Cha]

65. smartypants Nails It, she!

"But beyond an acceptance of the fact there is never going to be a candidate who aligns with me perfectly on every issue, there's something else that comes into play in my decision about whether or not to support a candidate/politician. Even more important to me are factors like: what are their values, what is their decision-making process, and what kind of person are they?"

And, the next snip..

"In this regard, I often think about how President Obama talks about the fact that the "easy decisions" never reach his desk. If there is an obvious right and wrong, someone else usually makes the call before it gets to him. What a president is faced with is making choices between hard alternatives that often come down to bad and worse (ie, Syria). Or between high risk good and low risk neutral/bad."

Works for me.. I trust and respect President Obama.. of course I don't agree with everything.. but, on the whole he has my support.

There's no "worship" involved and those who are peddling it couldn't be reading Nancy's piece.

Thank you for this timely post from smartypants/Nancy Letourneau, she~

A comment under her post..

"I think those who are most likely to scream "Obamabot" are those who look on what you say here and all they see is an argument to follow a leader based on their personality, not on what they actually do while in office.

I would argue, in contrast, that what I look for is a whole package of not just policy positions but also the reasoned (and yes, moral) path by which they come to those conclusions. It's not simply personality OR policy, it's both."

[sheshe2]

76. Thank you so much Cha.

I didn't see that comment. Well said, indeed.


I would argue, in contrast, that what I look for is a whole package of not just policy positions but also the reasoned (and yes, moral) path by which they come to those conclusions. It's not simply personality OR policy, it's both."

It's getting late and I am tired of trying to fight the whole point of the OP.

Thank you.

[Cha]

83. Yeah, all they have are little snerk bombs.. talking about "admitting it is the first step" when

you know damn well they haven't taken the time to read the OP.

The Hypocrisy from GG and ES fans is riotous...



You're Welcome, she

Coming to Get YOU!..

[sheshe2]

86. This is my last post!

For tonight anyway.

Love that pic!

Yup. The GG and ES bots are a laugh riot. So silly~

Sadly they are so blind. WorseBeforeBetter cries for help for NC here. Then proceeds to bash the rest of us. Some people are clueless about how unity can help their cause. No wonder we can never move forward.

Luv ya Cha!

[Cha]

88. Good NIght, she!

I googled obamabot images and got it on a rw site that said we would vote for Obama twice even though he wasn't even born here. I got it on a birfer trufer site

Luv ya back, she~

[DeSwiss]

67. ''Bots'' by its very name means to......

...have no will, no intelligence other than what is given to them at initial start-up or a later upgrade which comes from somewhere else other than the bot. And bots have no personal desires. That's what a ''bot'' is. They just do what they're programmed to do.

Even more important to me are factors like: what are their values, what is their decision-making process, and what kind of person are they?

And how exactly can one do this? From the teevee? From words coming forth from their mouth? How can nothing but a cursory and superficial assessment be made of someone that no one even heard of until a few months before the election in 2008? For example: I didn't know he thought of himself as a Republican.

- Meh. ''Methinks the Lady dost protest too much.''

[WorseBeforeBetter]

68. Good post. (n/t)

[sheshe2]

75. Well good for you for supporting that statement.

Now on a serious note, with your attitude you will never win anything in NC.

You toss away people that want to help you. You stick to the negatives, toss reason aside, and ridicule people. You show anger in a statement above that no one understands the dire situation in NC.

You have no clue how to win friends and influence people. Ditch the anger and just ask for help.

[DebJ]

91. From the first big speech Obama made at the convention, I concluded a few things.

First of all, that I liked him because above all, he supported a system of democracy: he communicated to me that his view was that we are all in this together, and that compromise is a necessary part of democracy.

For that commitment to democracy, I was ready to vote for him. I know that a real democracy means concessions all the time...and it's not a concession if it doesn't hurt. And I supported him also because, like Obama, I had too much faith in our democracy to believe that people like Turtle Man would so blatantly spit in the face of democracy over and over and over again. Yes, I am well aware of our continuous history of voter suppression..every time one group got the right to vote, immediately that right was squashed as thoroughly and quickly as possible.......but who could have ever predicted the ass-holery of the Republicans today, and the blatant vitriolic way it was / is pursued?

AND, most of all, right at the moments following his speech, I realized that as President, because of his clearly very firm belief in democracy, he was going to piss off a LOT of people. That was the second comment I made to my husband... the first, after we were able to shut our gaping jaws, was that this man will be the first African-American President.

I was right on both counts. I kept telling over-enthusiastic friends that they wouldn't like a lot of things, but they wouldn't believe me.

It was precisely his democratic focus.... his decision-making process...that was made evident in that speech, and he has lived up to that......the error being that he couldn't believe the other side would NOT support any kind of democracy whatsoever.

[PowerToThePeople]

70. When making a tough call, like assassinating US citizens overseas.

Ya, I can NOT support that nuanced perspective.

[U4ikLefty]

72. Admitting the problem is the first step.

[Vashta Nerada]

78. The suffix "-bot" is akin to someone who doesn't think.

E.g. see "blind faith".

[baldguy]

80. Like the automatic criticism of everything our Democratic President does?

[Vashta Nerada]

81. If you're talking about me, you're mistaken.

[treestar]

117. True, and they'd probably be displeased if we came up with a name for them!

Anti-Obama-bots. Just like Faux Noise.

They are indeed unthinking in their criticisms. Almost all of them are easily demolished. Then they get upset because their what they think dead on critique turns out to be shallow.

[fascisthunter]

155. or knee jerk reactions to criticism

[baldguy]

157. or sourcing that criticism verbatim from extremist RW libertarians

bent on literally destroying Americas middle-class and democracy, all the while loudly proclaiming what a proud liberal they are.

[quinnox]

85. A good example of how a sheep-like obedient and trusting bot thinks:

[sheshe2]

87. Sadly you missed the point entirely.

Not at all surprising.

[grasswire]

96. Did the blogger get her fairy wand yet? nt

[WorseBeforeBetter]

149. LOL She sounds like she's sitting around the lunch table...

discussing a new boyfriend with her closest girlfriend:

But beyond an acceptance of the fact there is never going to be a candidate who aligns with me perfectly on every issue, there's something else that comes into play in my decision about whether or not to support a candidate/politician. Even more important to me are factors like: what are their values, what is their decision-making process, and what kind of person are they?

"Even more important to me..." That's really a head-scratcher.

[grasswire]

150. I have never been able to take that blogger seriously...

......since I read her greatest wish: to be a really truly princess. Really and truly.

Everything after that was glop to me.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

159. Ah. I forgot about that.

What sticks in my mind is the hissy fit post. Welcome to the new dumbed-down DU:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022632517

^^ TRULY A BANNER THREAD ^^

[grasswire]

165. I missed that one.

Thank goodness.

[sheshe2]

171. Actually she did get her wish.

She pissed you the hell off! Hold on to your ridicule and disdain, it sure will help us win in 2014.

Hold it close and don't complain if we lose. You attitude gets us no where.

[politicman]

102. to improve things, vote for something, not just to keep the opposite party out of office.

And this is why politics in America are effed up.

People end up voting to try and make sure the other party loses, lost is the notion of using your vote as a way of making the politician hear you.

Politicians don't have to try and win your vote by coming up with and implementing policies that will serve the people, instead the people just give their votes to the politician they think is the least worst.

By not having to worry about losing the votes of their party, politicians can continue to kowtow to the 1%ers and the public ends up losing more and more.

Wake up people, make the politicians earn your vote, vote for something, not just against someone.

Make politicians work on behalf of the public by not just automatically throwing your vote their way just to deny the opposite party.

[Maedhros]

181. That comes from having the attitude that votes are a resource to be harvested,

and political money is the harvesting tool.

IMO, party leaders on both sides no longer even fool themselves into thinking they are serving the public. To them, we are just numbers on polls that can be moved up or down by spending money. Getting the money to move our opinions in the right direction is their first and foremost priority. And we aren't the ones offering them money.

[cali]

103. My problem is that unlike the author, I am aligned on very little with the President

when it comes to economic issues and not enough when it comes to environmental issues where for him, corporate well being too often trumps the common weal, as in the expansion of fracking with virtually no regulation on public lands.

[Democracyinkind]

104. Accepting the "bot" label is not a smart move.

She could have made the same (valid) points while rejecting the label.

I do think that there are Obamabots in the same manner that Britney was a Bushbot, but they're not very numerous, especially on DU.

Some ardent supporters of Obama on DU may come over as Obamabots in certain threads, but I think that's based on this awful binary team rivalry that has broken out on DU. If you follow lots of different threads, you'll see that there aren't that many "bots" on DU. Someone that comes over as totally anti-Obama in one thread may actually seem like an Obamabot in a different thread, and vice-versa.

Anyway, the whole "bot" label is just a bulverism, no matter which side uses it. It's not a valid argument, even in those few cases where it is an accurate description.

[treestar]

105. Exactly

And at least we know he puts some thought into the decisions.

It is not blind worship to support a politician and that is a stupid insult. It's from people who can't support anything or anybody. Because as you say, no other person agrees with you entirely. They demand the POTUS be their personal servant and take 100% power to do it (or "fight" for what THEY want, whatever the hell that means). And both politically and personally in some egotistical cases! The president brought about the ACA, a huge undertaking, which will have flaws and now he has to iron out every kink personally or he's a POS or such crap).

They are negative, miserable people who only want to cut down everything and everyone else.

[Corruption Inc]

119. Spoken like a true repuke "what are their values, what is their decision-making process"

That's the EXACT same thing every wingnut who ever support the war criminal Bush admin. said, THE EXACT SAME THING.

The author is not fooling anyone with an IQ over 80, they are a repuke.

[CJCRANE]

173. Not really. Who is your favorite politician?

What do you do when they do or say something you disagree with?

How many politicians (or people in general) do and say things which you agree with 100% of the time?

It stands to reason that no one person will do what you want 100% of the time, so other factors have to come into play.

In terms of politicians, that means you will choose someone who is more in line with your values.

If you are a conservative then you will probably choose someone who has conservative values similar to yours, and if you are liberal, someone with liberal values.

[philosslayer]

122. Fully agree!!

I will ALWAYS support my President.

[Bluenorthwest]

125. The 'bots' were the folks who were againt marriage equality when Obama

was against it, then for it when he 'evolved'. When he was 'against' the bot mind would insist that it was 'impossible' for him to support equality, that the only pragmatic way of thinking was to work for civil unions, which were the best anyone could realistically hope for in the coming decades. To ask for the fabulous pink pony of equality was to let the perfect be the enemy of the good. No major politician was going to support equality for at least a generation.....
The Obama said 'I was wrong' and the Bots instantly affected the role of strong, constant supporters of a right they had the previous day called impossible, unrealistic and the enemy of the good.
Bots did not help us turn that tide, the Bots defended the status quo because the President did. That's definitive of that mindset in my book.

And please note, I'd never use the term 'bot' to describe anyone except that is the theme of this OP.

[Puglover]

127. Exactly.

I think the vast majority of posters on this board that are labeled "haters" by some of our more pithy members are not so much anti Obama as anti "Obamabot".

I personally like the President very much and it would difficult for anyone to find a post of mine that says otherwise. I was quite vocal about my unhappiness with the "Donnie Mcclurkin" disaster and I stand by that. I have a great amount of heartburn when I am told I don't like him enough.

I have never been one to worship public figures, politicians, actors or otherwise.

[Marr]

130. +1

[QC]

132. Amen!

Funny how the people who shat on us for years around here all sprouted rainbow avatars the moment the president "evolved" to the position he had previously held when he was a state senator.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

147. Exactly. I'll never forget those "evolution" threads.

Now they're proudly waving rainbow flags.

[Rex]

153. I will never understand why someone would be proud of refusing to use critical thinking skills.

Maybe they just don't have any.

[bigwillq]

178. Good post.

[spanone]

126. k&r...

[Marr]

129. "...they think we support the President solely based on his position on issues". Nnnno.

My perception is that Obamabots don't really have any principled positions. They simply support whatever Obama supports, because they adore him as a celebrity. There's a very strong "leave Britney alone" quality to much of it, in my opinion.

[BumRushDaShow]

134. Sounds like the Snowden/Greenwald worshippers. nt

[Marr]

135. Hmm.

You think people who support Edward Snowden do so without regard to any political issues? That makes no sense.

[BumRushDaShow]

136. They don't "support". They worship. nt

[Marr]

141. That makes even less sense.

It's your contention that there is a group of people who worship Edward Snowden, and it has nothing to do with any political issues?

[BumRushDaShow]

142. Correct.

It's a clique thing.

[Marr]

143. A clique that formed around a nameless, wholly unspectactular IT guy.

Yeah, that um... makes sense.

[Bobbie Jo]

144. Exactly right.

I'm not sure why some of these folks think they haven't been seen in action.

This "above it all" schtick is failing miserably.

[TheKentuckian]

137. Translation: When actions cannot be reconciled with my values I dig for excuses and declare them

to be nuance or possibly lack of information and defer and/or become assimilated in favor of faith in thinking and process I am not actually privy to in any way except in my own imagination because it sounds a whole lot better than cult of personality and religious like faith in a public figure that I don't know.

[Whisp]

148. Apparently 'cults of personalities' are allowed for other personalities but not the Pres.

I would say the One who Shitts-a-Lot has a group that may be described as cultish. You can't criticize because an excuse that comes up fairly regularly is:, man, he wrote a book! When did You write a book! Which leads one to believe that if you write a book, you can speak like that dried shit ass cowardly fuck Nugent and be called a hero for it.

[grasswire]

161. well, then, Mr. Pitt must deserve a protected forum of his own.

Fair is fair.

[freshwest]

172. How did I miss this thead? Reporting for the list! n/t

[sheshe2]

175. Thanks Freshwest!

[IrishAyes]

174. Wow - and to think I almost missed this. Thanks for the OP and link.

I intend to share the link on FB next time I'm on, probably this afternoon.

[sheshe2]

176. Luv ya Irish!