President Obama's Gallup approval rating amongst liberal Democrats for April 2nd-8th is 87%.

[LoZoccolo]

[Arkana]

1. You enjoy doing that, don't you?

[LoZoccolo]

4. It is like a citronella candle for "the base is leaving Obama" posts.

[freshwest]

7. Yes, nobody loves him, everybody hates him... Video and photos say otherwise.

What are you gonna believe, your lying eyes and ears, or the well-paid voices of gloom and doom?

The next complaint, and it might stick, LoZoccolo:

A high percentage of Liberal Democrats? Haven't you heard the news? There are only half a dozen true liberals and progressives left in the Democratic Party. The poll is an outrageous exaggeration.

[LoZoccolo]

17. Someone tried to say real liberals left, while others started adopting the label for themselves.

[freshwest]

18. Reminds me of the pastor telling members having troubles. 'You must not have been really saved!'

No way to defend oneself from the Holier Than Thou's, or the demands for conformity from the newly converted.

[Ken Burch]

30. Why continue the hostility?

You got what you wanted. There was no primary challenge. Isn't that enough? Why keep the snark going?
It's not like it was wrong for progressives to call out Obama when he went right-wing on some things.

[Ken Burch]

50. I didn't lie

I've seen LoZo at work for years. His whole agenda has been about silencing dissent through derision...and it's totally unnecessary.

We're a better party when dissenting views can be aired openly.

[freshwest]

57. My name is not LoZoccolo, and you responded to me and I answered you.

Peace Out.

[Ken Burch]

60. The response was to your post, but really it was to the premise of the thread

I wasn't aiming it at you.

[freshwest]

55. I wanted a primary challenge to define the differences, so 'who you talkin' to?' n/t

I also support the lawsuits on the NDAA. There are things that Obama may do as CoC that I don't approve of, but then there are things that every POTUS has or will do, that can be called crimes against humanity and nature. If Hedges wins the lawsuit along with Ellsburg, I'll be glad. It's not about Obama, it's about the MIC.It should be called by the original term used by Eiserhnower, the MICC or Military Industrial Congressioal Complex.

What is going on in D. C. is not the sole idea of one man, but grows from a state by state series of employment and education that has brought this mess on all our heads. He's governing a country that has been into building this for fifty years, not the nation of Bhutan.

Are we cool now? Hope you had a nice day in the sun.

[Ken Burch]

56. To the person starting the thread, not you.

I hope the hell by "define the differences", you weren't looking to drive out people on the left?

Doing THAT never helps this party.

[freshwest]

58. No, it always helps this party. The biggest problem with the Presidential Debate Corporation is that

It doesn't give enough voices to allow the voters to see what the candidates really stand for, it keeps the focus too narrow. We had spirited debates with third party candidates in the past, and then this damned corporate thing got in bed with both the parties.

At that time, Obama could have had his platform shifted left, but the media didn't want those 'losers' on the stage. But I suspect the media pushed it and probably said something like, 'Screw the fairness doctrine allowing all views, too much air time on people our owners don't like.'

Putting the heat on one man for a huge problem, the apathy, venality and gullibility of the American public in supporting things the left hates, is not productive.

The GOP, if anything, has taught us the hard way that networking through non-governmental and private entities such as churches and other influences of the voters, created their groundswell. They have taken over local and state elections so much that they have shifted this country to the right in such a firm way that we may want to deny, but it's there.

Obama is dealing with to deal a reality that many Democrats and people on the Left don't have to go face to face with. The USA is not shifting to the right because of him, it is shifting that way no matter what he thinks.

The good people of Wisconsin are setting an example, but they are also showing us just how entrenched the opposition really is. There is no magic wand to make those people go away. We are living in very dangerous times and the work is mainly local.

[Ken Burch]

59. The work IS mainly local

But we have a right, at least, to expect that the president we elected(and yes, WE did elect him..it was not the mythical left-hating "independents&quot not to undermine the work by distancing himself from us and treating us as if we don't matter in the process.

He should never have listened to people like Rahm, a guy who was always against ordinary working people and against social justice in any real form. You can't care about the streets if you work in the suites.

[freshwest]

61. The streets and the suites are part of a whole. Each requires the other.

I'd prefer granges and co-operatives, but those are organized far away from suites. And they are subject to the oppression of local oligarchies.

A labor union does not negotiate contracts with other labor unions. but with a corporation or other large organization that has capital or public resources.

Rhyming statements are fun, but they don't get the work done. Oh, shit. A rhyme. Dammit. Catcher in the Rye, no, that won't work... Just don't be a jerk. I really must go to sleep, so I'll return later, peep.

[treestar]

65. What is hostile? It simply states a bare fact.

[Wait Wut]

20. That is your best comeback...EVER!!

[Ken Burch]

28. This thread was totally unneeded

Obama is renominated...there's no justification in Democrats making snide comments about the left anymore.

[TheWraith]

46. It seems clear there is a point...

...since you still think that the anti-Obama brigade somehow represents "the left." That 87% approval rating among liberals tells a different tale. Some people here would be well served by learning that the purity testers do not represent the Democratic base, or liberals, or "the left," but rather a small and angry group for whom good is never good enough.

[Ken Burch]

53. That poll does not mean the left is ok with Obama's compromises and betrayals.

Obviously, most progressive people are going to back him by default...that goes without saying.

But no genuinely progressive person could think all the compromises and all the rightward tacks were actually a GOOD thing.

We didn't really gain anything, for example, by settling for less-than-half of a healthcare bill, for example. We've got that, and I hope it isn't thrown out, simply because it would give aid and comfort to our enemies if it were to be...but that doesn't mean the passage of the bill was a victory. It was just a win-in-name, and should be seen as such.

No gains were realized by abandoning the fight for card check-and no votes were gained by leaving Gitmo open or dawdling about getting out of Iraq OR staying in Afghanistan. I'll vote for the guy anyway, and so will most, but those were still unjustifiable bitter pills.

It's bullshit to imply that a general approval rating means that progressives think Obama is one of us. They simply mean a recognition that the GOP would be worse. But we had a RIGHT to expect more than "the lesser evil".

A lot of people are voting for Obama through gritted teeth...and threads like this don't help keep those people committed to actually showing up at the polls. That's what I'm saying.

There just needs to be an end to the left-bashing. That's not too much to ask.

You need to recognize that you're asking these people to do something unpleasant in settling for re-electing this admin on the current terms.

Obviously, we're all going to be working to try to bring down the Boehnerhaus, and to increase Dem strength in the Senate if possible(although only the election of progressive Dem senators actually counts as a gain)but it's default support at the top of the ticket, and the attitude the admin took towards the activists(including most of those in "the Obama movement" has a lot to do with that). You switch from transformation to "the art of the deal", and you have to expect that you'll have trouble hanging onto the people who voted for transformation.

Finally, it doesn't make you a "purity tester" just because you defend your principles. No one should be attacked for having standards. It's not like compromise ever really serves the people anyway.

[mopinko]

89. you need to realize that you are just wrong.

"But no genuinely progressive person could think all the compromises and all the rightward tacks were actually a GOOD thing"

many genuinely progressive people live in the real world where government is about compromise and accomplishing what you can AND ABOUT what people who are not progressives get from their representatives, to fill their needs.

we are not a genuinely progressive country. we are a purple country, which is the country that obama is the president of. most of us accept that there are other people who have power, who want things done, and who have interesting in both change and resistance to change.
many genuine progressives, iow, live here in america, among the fools and the greedy, the racists and the holy, the poor and the rich. we hold dear the values of patience and acceptance. and we hold dear those who fight the good fight, and move things in the right direction.

some of us genuine progressives are
PROUD AS HELL OF OUR PRESIDENT

[One of the 99]

106. Seems unfair that you're last post was hidden.

I didn't see anything in that violated any of the posting rules. It seems more like some here didn't like what you had to say so they censored you. In fact, while this will probably get me censored too, I think everyone should be allowed to see your original post:

Although more to the point, suddenly it's "hostility" to point out that the overwhelming majority of the Democratic base approves of Obama and always has, but I notice a lack of the same reprimand when it's the Obama Bad Brigade bashing and trashing anyone who doesn't believe exactly the way they do, calling the actual Democratic supporters here "Obama bots," "locksteppers," talking about "trimming your ideals," etcetera.

[Wait Wut]

85. Poop, I say!

There was no snide comment! Just a funny comment. It's okay to laugh, even when a comment may or may not be directed at you.

[Ken Burch]

31. He didn't need to make a comeback

There was no call for this thread. Nobody has THAT much reason to be pissed off at left critics of Obama.

[Wait Wut]

84. What?

Where do you see that LoZo is "pissed off"? It's a damned good time to be showing the Democrats on DU that our President, our Democratic candidate, is damned popular.

And, that was a damned good comeback. Admit it.

[morningfog]

36. Where are those posts?

[jenwilson]

2. Most popular president of all time, but...

you won't see the media report that truth.

Instead you see the majority hateful papers printing the Republican lies about how "of the 740,000 jobs lost since Obama took office, 683,000 of them were held by women." As the NYT proved, that statement, while true, is false.

[Ken Burch]

26. "...that statement, while true, is false..."?

[rufus dog]

3. You better believe it! n/t

[FSogol]

11. LOL.

[rufus dog]

13. what?

What?





or

[FSogol]

16. Someone mentioned in the common phrase of your subject line won't be happy with this thread.

[rufus dog]

19. really did I make a mistake?

Is there someone who may take offense my post? If so I deeply apologize......., you better believe it FSogal!

[Wait Wut]

21. Oh shit!

Good catch!

[Surya Gayatri]

39. Nice one, rufus! Better believe it, indeed...Bwaahaaa!

n/t

[zappaman]

45. Well played, sir! n/t

[treestar]

66. lol/nt

[SidDithers]

87. Heheh...

Sid

[BumRushDaShow]

5. K&R

[anti-alec]

6. So nothing new to add. Okay.

Moving on. *plonk*

[jenwilson]

8. Is plonk an insult?

Or some sort of personal attack?

[FiveGoodMen]

10. Plonk is a Usenet jargon term for adding a particular poster to one's kill file

such that the poster's future postings are completely ignored. It was first used in 1989, and by 1994 was a commonly used term on Usenet regarding kill file additions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plonk_(Usenet)

[FSogol]

12. Wait a minute, ignore them? I wasn't supposed to kill all the people in my kill file?

{Disclaimer: No people were killed.}

[gkhouston]

77. LOL, if CTRL-k actually killed people, I'd be serving life in prison. n/t

[Ruby the Liberal]

15. Here, it typically means one of two things

1. Putting the user on ignore so you don't see their posts (click their name, then the "ignore" link)

2. Trashing the thread so you don't see it in the forum listing any more (click the Trash thread button in the first post, or the box with a red 'x' in it next to the thread in the forum listing).

Both are completely appropriate.

[anti-alec]

24. It's a subtle way to say

"please log off net-kook" - thus the acronym "plonk".

And yes, it means that LoZoccolo has entered my ignore file.

[treestar]

67. Simply for stating a fact?

[LeftishBrit]

83. Not exactly. It means 'I am putting you on my ignore list'.

For some reason, posters often feel it necessary to state this, as though being ignored by a particular poster is supposed to be a punishment of some sort!

[zbdent]

9. imagine what it would be if he really acted the "far left liberal" like the "liberally-biased

corporate media" keeps telling us (via far-right lunatic pundits) ...

[Daniel537]

14. Is it too late to primary him?!??!?

[Jamaal510]

22. What is his approval rating among conservative Republicans?

[freshwest]

115. I've never met one who wanted Obama to EXIST, much less be POTUS.

That would be a very revealing poll.

[hootinholler]

23. You wouldn't have the questions and tabs for that would you? n/t

[Ken Burch]

25. Y'know...nobody challenged Obama in the primaries...so you really don't need to keep doing this

Can you stop the left-baiting already? There's no justification for it anymore.

[Motown_Johnny]

29. Please explain this thread from 3 days ago and it's 98 recs

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002529821

^snip^

"Obama has governed as a conservative. So, the question for progressives is, “What do we do now?”



Obama’s willingness to bargain away core progressive values of the Democratic Party in a deficit-reduction deal comes after his meltdown on a large range of issues dear to progressives: His unconditional support for Bush's Wall Street bailout; his escalation of the Afghanistan War; his acceptance of Bush-era limits on civil liberties; his shift from supporting the healthcare public option and opposing individual mandates during the 2008 campaign to subverting the public option and backing individual mandates in 2009; his extension of the Bush tax cuts for the rich (in exchange for Republicans allowing an extension of unemployment benefits and aid to cash-strapped states); his withdrawal of strong EPA rules on clean air; his gratuitous attacks on “the professional Left.”

[Ken Burch]

32. Yes, and Obama was renominated anyway

So why do you even care about threads like that? It's not like those people are doing anything evil.

Obama has this thing won already.

[Motown_Johnny]

73. It can depress turnout. That post is pure bull shit

Obama has been stuck with some conservative legislation but the fact is that a conservative would not even be fighting the same fights. The very fact that equal pay and hate crime legislation has been signed by President Obama destroys that post. Any conservative would have been to busy passing more tax cuts and starting more wars to deal with things like equal rights.

[Ken Burch]

41. The points raised in it are legitimate

But, since those people are probably going to vote Obama anyway, why does it matter?

You can't seriously argue that we should have a "no dissent" policy between now and the election. That will mean dissent will never be acceptable after the election as well.

LoZo is trying to silence people through derision...that's all he's ever been about...he's never genuinely cared about progressive change...he's just about "winning"...even though winning through compromise is no different than losing, and small changes are basically the same as preserving the status quo.

Look, I'm going to vote Obama...I'd probably have given my approval in that poll, but it's not appropriate, given that we need unity for the fall, for Lozo to be doing yet another "fuck you, lefties!" thread. He needs to stop, since those threads only harm the party.

[LoZoccolo]

91. Compromise often leads to some of what you want, rather than none.

[AtomicKitten]

33. Why does this particular poll stick in your craw?

And what is "left-baiting" about it? Self-identified liberals were polled and the president enjoys majority support. Do you feel left out because you perhaps view yourself among the remaining 13%? People aren't shy about declaring that here so I really don't get your admonition to the OP.

[Ken Burch]

37. Not the poll. LoZoccolo's arrogant, gloating use of it.

LoZo has never been about anything but telling progressives to shut the fuck up. And he has no justification for ever doing that. Progressives weren't wrong to call Obama out when he was right-wing on a significant number of issues.

He's been renominated by acclimation now, there was NO primary challenge, and rather than just leave it alone, LoZo is using this poll to bait. He has no good reason to be stirring up shit. Nobody on the left deserves it.

If I'd been polled, I'd probably have given the prez overall approval...but that doesn't mean that progressive critiques of the administration have no validity and that those who dissent should be dissed-ok? Dissing left critics NEVER makes this party stronger or more electable.

[AtomicKitten]

43. He didn't even post a link to this post (he never does),

so I'm having a hard time seeing how you can confidently apply a motive to posting the poll.

What does this post have to do with O not having a primary challenge? You are alleging the OP is using this poll as a cudgel and that seems to me quite a leap in reasoning; I've always just viewed the posting of polls as information, an FYI.

[Ken Burch]

47. You obviously don't know how he works, then.

whatever.

[treestar]

68. +1

[SidDithers]

80. Posting a Gallup poll is left-baiting?...

Sid

[LoZoccolo]

92. He wrote me a DU mail last night that says "ARE you ever going to stop with the left-baiting?".

[DisgustipatedinCA]

94. OH MY GOD, YOU'RE REVEALING THE CONTENTS OF A PRIVATE EMAIL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

...as is your complete right, of course.

[LoZoccolo]

95. It was basically a reiteration of what he posted here.

[Ken Burch]

98. Your "citronella candle" comment basically vindicated my point.

I guess what I'm saying is...Obama got renominated, and he'll be getting at least grudging backing from virtually all the people to your left that you spend most of your time dissing, so why stir up hard feelings by doing what amounts to a gloat thread?

You're fighting a battle that's over already.

[LoZoccolo]

100. Why should claims that the base are no longer supporting Obama go unrefuted?

[Ken Burch]

102. Obama just clinched renomination without a challenge

There's the refutation by itself. You could have left it at that.

[LoZoccolo]

103. I've been posting this statistic since long before that.

[Ken Burch]

104. Now, you no longer need to.

Now is the time to try a POSITIVE appeal to the people who've had problems with Obama on the left...now is the time to give the "shut up and get in line" thing a rest. OK?

[LoZoccolo]

105. Why do you assume that I'm saying anything in addition to the statistic?

[Wait Wut]

86. Ken...

...it's only "baiting" if you take it. If it offends you for some bizarre reason, roll your eyes and move on. It's a simple comment. It really shouldn't be a reason for your blood pressure to rise. "Hide Thread", though I've never tried it, is apparently an excellent way to avoid potential health issues.

[Zax2me]

27. A little low.

Come voting booth moment it will be 100%.

[Ken Burch]

34. Out of desperation.

That won't mean that progressives are OK with Obama being right-wing on a lot of issues...nor will it mean that it was cool to disregard the left critics.

It will just be lesser-evilism-and we were promised it wouldn't be lesser-evil politics once this guy got in.

[Bonobo]

35. Those are not liberal Democrats.

They are people that self-define as liberal Democrats.

There is a massive difference.

A liberal Democrat would not approve of policies that the president himself admits would be pushed and embraced by Reagan.

[AtomicKitten]

40. You are not the arbiter of how people define themselves.

Defining oneself as liberal and generally supporting this president are not mutually exclusive.

Your definition of terms is just that, yours as in your opinion.

[Bonobo]

42. Nope, you're right. People can call themselves anything they want but it doesn't make it true. nt

[RZM]

48. For instance, those who call themselves Democrats

But are really socialists or greens.

[SidDithers]

81. +1...nt

Sid

[Number23]

113. Nailed it

[AtomicKitten]

49. fair enough -

but keep in mind judging people by their posts on message boards is fraught with all kinds of misperceptions fueling mischaracterizations.

I consider myself a liberal, generally support the president, and below is my point of view on various issues mapped on a political scale. With that in mind, you may need to retool your judgment of others.

[BzaDem]

62. But I think that applies even more to what someone calls someone else, no?

I mean, for example, here we have you saying that a wide swath of liberal Democrats are not actually liberal Democrats.

But I think it is quite likely that for the vast majority of those Democrats, you are clearly wrong (i.e, not even a close question).

So while what someone else calls themselves might be the wrong label, it is far more likely that the person disagreeing with that self-identification is wrong.

Your view is a textbook example of the "no true Scotsman" logical fallacy. It is actually very easy to do: all I have to do is say that 100% of liberal Democrats agree with me. If you disagree with me, all I have to say is "but that makes you not a liberal Democrat. So I'm still correct." But in the end, it is a good thing that you are wrong. Because the logical implication of what you are saying is that there are so few liberal Democrats, that there is really no reason for Democratic party politicians to take them seriously. You are wrong -- there is a reason to take them seriously, because they make up a large part of our party. But that fact only follows because you are wrong. If you were right, it would not follow.

[Bonobo]

72. Your reply didn't make much sense.

There is a relatively objective way to measure how liberal or not liberal people's political stances are.

If you cannot see the degree to which Dems have shifted right in the last 15 or 20 years, I probably cannot help you to see it either.

It has nothing to do with logical fallacies.

The President happily talks about how his policies were advanced initially by the Republicans. Policies that, now, the Republicans reject as "liberal" --pushing us further tot he right in an effort to appear to be "centrists".

Thus, the term "liberal" has come to mean something far, far to the right of what it meant before.

I hope you can open your eyes and see just a bit more of the big picture someday.

[TheKentuckian]

97. No, that works only for self defining classifications.

Liberal doesn't just mean liberal like plumber doesn't just mean plumber but comes with a set of expectations for abilities.

Hell, even Scotsman comes with the requirement to be from Scotland. You can't be from China with no Scottish ancestry.

Liberal either has a definition or it doesn't and one fits it or they don't.

You can't be a Trekker but despise or have no interest or have never seen Star Trek.

[One of the 99]

107. Exactly right AK!

Unbelievable that same people who call anyone who supports the President an 'Obamabot' take such an authoritative stand on how others define themselves.

[Kaleva]

51. DU is not a good representation of liberal Democrats in general

DU is a good representation of the people who are members of DU.

[U4ikLefty]

64. not anymore

[NNN0LHI]

76. Never has been

And I have been here since almost the beginning.

Don

[U4ikLefty]

99. see post #71

[girl gone mad]

71. True since most of the liberals have been driven off of DU.

[SidDithers]

82. ...

That statement is so untrue, it's laughable.

Sid

[treestar]

69. Reagan?

Really?

[Bonobo]

70. Even Obama admits his policies re health care are those that Reagan would applaud. nt

[JoePhilly]

74. And Mormons aren't real Christians.

At least that's what the real Christians say.

[Bonobo]

79. Well if you're just using "liberal" without any meaning behind it, you are right.

But fortunately, the issue is not as hard to get to the bottom of as religious belief.

"Believing" oneself to be a "liberal" does not make one so. It is not as if there is no relationship between the label "liberal" and the political positions one takes. There is --and it is easily comparable to other positions that have been taken or not taken in the past.

So you can call yourself a "liberal" if you want. But if you espouse policies that are not liberal positions, than your claim is shown to be a lie.

In other words, as I said, self-identifying as a liberal does not make yourself a liberal.

In that sense, it is most assuredly NOT like religion where belief is all that really is demanded.

I hope you will give it some thought and maybe you'll see why your analogy falls so flat.

[joshcryer]

78. *sigh* How often does it need to be said? Many liberals do not identify as Democrats.

[Arkana]

96. You don't get to be the arbiter of "liberal Democrats". Sorry.

[morningfog]

38. Liberal Democrats won't be decisive in the election. We need to track the Indys.

[MrScorpio]

52. 87% who don't think that Prez O. is sending us all to hell.

Very welcome news indeed.

[gratuitous]

54. Uh oh, down from 139%

This calls for more drone strikes in Yemen.

[Electric Monk]

63. 87% of those who one might expect to be naturally inclined to support him, do so. Hmm.

[hobbit709]

75. One of the things I DIDN'T miss lately.

[SmellyFeet]

88. Why do so many fall for the Liberal Democrat equals all of the left or all Liberals?

It blows my mind how stupid some can be when trying to make a point.

[99Forever]

90. Ahhh yes...

.. the ever cheerful and wonderful circular firing squad.


Thanks for starting my day with an insult to my intelligence.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

93. LZ, please know this:

President Obama has several policies I really don't like. He's continued some of the really bad stuff that GWB put in place, and he's even cranked some of it up (drones being a good example). So I get really angry with the President sometimes, and I'm going to continue to get angry with him on occasion if he continues in the same vein.

But none of that means that any of the GOP contenders, or the criminals who were in office before Obama, can hold a candle to this president. They're boorish, they're boobs, they completely disrespect their constituency and count on them being stupid so that they can be led by the nose, and they have dishonorable goals, to say the very least. Romney, Santorum, Gingrich, and all the beginning set of clowns, are intellectually incurious. They have nothing to offer. Their "plans" turn to powdered dust upon even the most cursory of inspections, e.g. Paul Ryan's tax plan. They really do define a new low in American politics.

Can you allow for a world where good liberals get angry with the president for good reasons, but still understand that he's roughly 1700% better than ANY Republican would be in his position? It's a complex world, and we're all adults here. Would you consider being a little less binary where this set of issues is concerned?

[Fumesucker]

108. LZ admitted in H&M a while back that he's looking to provoke others into rash posts.

So I think your plea will fall on deaf ears and blind eyes.

[LoZoccolo]

109. I'm not sure there's much value in doing that.

[Fumesucker]

111. You deny you wrote that?

You were extolling your interest in game theory as I recall.

[LoZoccolo]

112. I wrote something, but not that.

[Scurrilous]

101. K & R

[Nye Bevan]

110. Surely this is good news?

Why has this thread caused so much controversy?

[Number23]

114. K&R&LMAO