HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Proud Liberal Dem » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4

Proud Liberal Dem

Profile Information

Name: Mara
Gender: Female
Hometown: Indianapolis, Indiana
Home country: USA
Current location: Indianapolis, Indiana
Member since: Sat Feb 28, 2004, 01:13 AM
Number of posts: 20,286

About Me

Transgender (MTF) Social Worker/Case Manager working for State of Indiana. Huge Sci-Fi/Anime Geek and music lover. Hopeless \"political junkie\" and aspiring writer.

Journal Archives

I dunno. I'm sure that Panetta can hang on to the post for awhile

Dems should make sure to fight tooth and nail for a filibuster-proof Senate in 2014 if for no other reason that to end the legislative and advisory "constipation" that the Republicans have inflicted upon us since 2009. The Senate is supposed to be a more *deliberative* body than the House, which is fine, but it's not supposed to be reduced to total inaction by one party or the other.
Posted by Proud Liberal Dem | Tue Feb 12, 2013, 03:49 PM (0 replies)

Sad but inevitable

Yet when Republicans win, they call their victories "mandates" and proceed to unapologetically adopt their regressive agenda. For them, elections have no consequences because when they win they feel that they can do what they want because of their all-powerful "mandates"- even in closely divided elections like 2000 & 2004- and when they lose- sometimes overwhelmingly- they (somehow) accuse the Democrats of trying to cram a "partisan" agenda down everybody's throats and resort to whatever tactics are available to thwart, stall, or otherwise obstruct Democratic/progressive policies. What's worse is that the corporate media aids and abets Republicans' strategies and often holds Democrats to a ridiculous standard of "bipartisanship" that I never see Republicans held to whenever they're in power.
Posted by Proud Liberal Dem | Tue Feb 12, 2013, 08:38 AM (0 replies)

Benghazi is driving the Republicans and their "base" barking, foaming mad

The death of 4 American diplomats was a tragedy and Congress has a proper role in investigating what happened and how such tragedies can be prevented in the future (i.e. not cutting spending for security at embassies/consulates) but some Republicans like Graham, McCain, et. al are acting as though 3000 American citizens died here on American soil and the President of the United States of America and his national security team had received an intelligence briefing nearly a month before indicating that something wicked was this way coming. I don't remember any members of the "Benghazi Brigade" attacking President George W. Bush and demanding the kind of accountability and scrutiny over 9/11/01 that they are demanding of President Obama over the events of 09/11/12. What's even more surprising (or depressing depending on your point of view) is that McCain, Graham, et. al have apparently been spending more time holding press conferences attacking would-be Presidential nominees for various critical agencies and grandstanding than actually attending briefings that have been held on what exactly happened in Benghazi, where they might, you know, get some of those "answers" that they keep demanding.
Posted by Proud Liberal Dem | Mon Feb 11, 2013, 09:35 AM (4 replies)

The sequester was a bad idea

Yes, it was supported by both parties- but, ultimately, only as a means of getting the REPUBLICANS to (finally) agree to raising the debt ceiling- a crisis that REPUBLICANS unnecessarily instigated back in Spring 2011. The sequester was also only intended to kick in if the so-called bipartisan "Super Committee" failed to do their job and create a deficit-reduction plan for the rest of the Congress to vote on. The Super Committee failed, largely because REPUBLICANS continued to refuse to budge on revenue, which plagued earlier attempts at a "Grand Bargain" to get the REPUBLICANS to agree to raise the debt ceiling. Anybody seeing a pattern here? Had the Republicans decided NOT to hold the debt ceiling "hostage" and agreed to work in good faith with President Obama and the Democrats in Congress on the deficit (which shouldn't really have been THE issue during a recession), there would never have even been a sequester in the first place. Oh, and Remember President Obama crowing about getting 98% of what he wanted? Yeah, me neither............

Nobody wants the sequester. They should just get rid of it completely at this point even if nobody is in agreement on what to replace it with. Just pass a one sentence bill wiping it out of existence completely and have President Obama sign it and problem is solved.
Posted by Proud Liberal Dem | Sun Feb 10, 2013, 03:38 PM (0 replies)

I for one am not going to criticize much the judgement of the man who got OBL after being in office

for only 2 years

I am NOT going to listen to the maniacal rantings and judgements of a man whose (mis-)Administration failed to prevent the deaths of 3,000 Americans on 09/11/01 and then went on to fail to get the man most directly responsible for it during the next 7-8 years.

Dick: GFY!
Posted by Proud Liberal Dem | Sun Feb 10, 2013, 11:43 AM (1 replies)

Where the hell are doctors and medical professionals on all of these laws?

One would think that they might have something to say about politicians ordering all of these medically unnecessary procedures and interfering with their ability to practice medicine. I never have actually heard doctors have much voice whenever these kind of bills get hammered out by legislatures. Why is that? Do they support them? Do they oppose them? What about the Hippocratic Oath?

BTW I know it's probably a minor issue but what's the point of requiring a woman to sign a consent to allow the procedure if she technically can't refuse if she is seeking an abortion?
Posted by Proud Liberal Dem | Thu Feb 7, 2013, 05:11 PM (1 replies)

This is an incredible and flagrant violation of the law as it currently exists

Congress passed the law and President Obama signed it, so it is law now. Republicans don't get to demand changes to the law by simply refusing to confirm somebody to head the agency until the changes they want are made. IMHO they need to allow a confirmation vote for a head of the agency and if they want changes, they need to work on getting them passed and signed into law (which they won't) of course, but that sucks for them. That's how it's *supposed* to work in our system though. If the President is a Democrat and, particularly, if one of the two legislative bodies are Democratic, you're not likely to get Republican policies signed into law, certainly not without some compromise. Are Republicans suggesting that we could have stopped or obstructed a bunch of Bush initiatives by engaging in such tactics when we were in the minority for 6 years? We all know how that would have gone over with them and how outraged they would be by this. Now, since they're the ones doing this, they think it is perfectly acceptable. This would be a great opportunity for them to demonstrate to the country how, through the use of "improved messaging", they will get Americans to stop worrying and love Republicans and their desire to weaken the moderate financial reform that Congress passed in the wake of the 2008 meltdown.
Posted by Proud Liberal Dem | Tue Feb 5, 2013, 11:13 AM (0 replies)

He apparently doesn't understand how female reproduction and birth control work

They are trying to push the myth that regular birth control pills are abortifacients. The problem is that the people who listen to him don't know either and/or actually believe what he's saying. Scarier yet is that there are probably some women whom know so little about their bodies that they believe it too.
Posted by Proud Liberal Dem | Tue Feb 5, 2013, 10:50 AM (0 replies)

This obsession about the Senate "passing a budget (resolution)" is weird

It's as if the Senate passing a non-binding budget resolution (that is DOA in the House anyway) is the most important thing in the world and is going to (somehow) solve all of our problems or something.

BTW what do House members do on the (many) days they are not in session?
Posted by Proud Liberal Dem | Tue Feb 5, 2013, 10:36 AM (0 replies)
Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4