Dems, get behind your President

[BklnDem75]

In the ordinary world of politics, last week might have seemed like a pretty good one for Barack Obama. Far-reaching financial reform legislation passed the Senate and headed to the President's desk. Add that to comprehensive health care reform (the lodestar of the left's domestic agenda), overhaul of the student lending program and an $800 billion stimulus measure, and the first 18 months of Obama's presidency are the most successful period of progressive legislative activity in more than four decades.

Yet even with this list of accomplishments, there is a growing sense of gloom and anger among the President's liberal supporters. Bob Kuttner of The American Prospect has accused the President of not governing like a progressive. Eric Alterman says most progressives would agree that Obama's presidency "has been a big disappointment." Enthusiasm among rank-and-file Democrats pales next to that of Republicans.

The left's litany of complaints will be familiar to regular readers of the liberal blogosphere. Obama didn't fight hard enough for a public option during the health care debate; he didn't push for a bigger stimulus; he's sat on his hands in the climate change debate; he's been too cautious on gay rights; he's adopted the fuzzy language of postpartisanship. In short, to liberals, Obama has been a "sellout."

This criticism is misdirected. It ignores the administration's significant accomplishments, but it also fails to take into account the significant institutional impediments that are thwarting Obama and, in, turn, a larger progressive agenda.


http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2010/07/21/2010-07-21_dems_get_behind_your_president_barack_obama_needs_liberal_support__and_hes_earne.html

[mikelgb]

1. Mr President, get behind your Dems

[LostinVA]

5. Exactly -- THAT is how it's supposed to work n/t

[jgraz]

19. Amazing how many people fail to understand that.

Also amazing that they think these RAH RAH threads serve any purpose whatsoever.

[LostinVA]

23. It actually, still, shocks me a bit

To see them here.

[treestar]

46. So no more posts demanding Mr. President to LEAD us!!!

We're supposed to LEAD him! :rofl: which one of us gets that honor? What happens when we disagree? :rofl:

The POTUS is not your personal servant! Why is that hard to see? Or, that other Americans are not all exactly like you and 100% in agreement with you!

[Sebastian Doyle]

53. If you want a dictator, move to a country that has one

Here in the United States of America, government serves the people.

Or at least, it's supposed to. You would think a former Constitutional Law professor would get that.

[BklnDem75]

57. People meaning ALL of us

Not some of us

[Sebastian Doyle]

59. GoldMansacks is NOT "the people". British Petroleum is NOT "the people"

Iraq, Afghanistan, and that fucked in the head lunatic Bennie NuttyYahoo are NOT "the people".


THESE are the people who elected Obama.....

[BklnDem75]

62. 80-90% of them are very happy

You should join them

[davidpdx]

63. Love that picture of the rally in Portland

I am still so sad I wasn't able to be there.

[treestar]

83. That number of people certainly comprises many different opinions

They chose Obama as the one whose opinion would actually take shape in policies. But could not rationally expect total agreement with each one of them.

[Sheepshank]

87. Bashers are out in full force.

congratulatory slaps on the back of the head, for lining up and being first in line to offer negativity.

I know, I know, the inevitable, "I don't walk lock step...freedoom of speech meme" (sp intentional) will abound, but will never hesitate to screech the hypocritical meme and stomp on those that don't follow the negativity theme with gusto. Those that choose to support Obama, even given they didn't get the coveted strawberry flavored milkshake instead being offered the chocolate flavor, sure are being used as punching bags in this site lately.

[derby378]

97. We didn't even get a chocolate milkshake...

We got an expired bottle of warm Yoo-Hoo and a kick in the ass.

[Sheepshank]

101. fail

[treestar]

82. The people are diverse, so at times the POTUS will appear

to you to be doing something that is not good for the people, yet it might be, in general. And his opinion could differ from yours. Or that of many of the people might.

[spoony]

28. Perfect response.

Could not be better.

[krawhitham]

33. no wonder we always lose

what the fuck is wrong with you people

you have two options


1) GET BEHIND HIM

3) HAVE A REPIG IN OFFICE


no fucking middle ground, open your eyes

[tabasco]

52. It's plain to see they want a puke in office if Obama hasn't created utopia yet.

These people with the groundhog avatars are comfortable fuckers who will not suffer with a puke in office.

They are idiots.

[mikelgb]

85. wow, so sensible

[Sebastian Doyle]

54. You have it entirely backwards

It's the President who has two options.

1) Do what WE (the people, not the fucking worthless criminal pieces of shit in Manhattan) elected him to do.

2) Get a new job in January 2013.

[treestar]

84. How is any President supposed to be able to do that?

How does he do what everyone wants? Impossible.

The government represents us, through our elected officials. We don't decide on laws by national plebiscite.

[donheld]

76. Get behind him when he give the repuglicans what they want?

[mikelgb]

86. another sensible soul

[derby378]

41. +100

:applause:

[girl gone mad]

43. ^^^

Stop throwing us under the bus and listen to us every once in a while.

Stop calling us childish, f*cking retards, leftbaggers, purists, etc.

The White House has wasted almost 2 years now attacking us while kissing Republican ass. And for what? I doubt they've won over one single voter on the right, but they sure as hell have lost tens of thousands on the left.

[DimplesinMI]

61. HERE HERE............

Totally agree. This President needs to remember those who voted for him.....not the one's that voted against him!

[ibegurpard]

66. short and sweet

perfect response

[grahamhgreen]

67. Duh! Step up to the plate, Pres, it's your turn to bat!

[donheld]

75. I'd love to see that just once, especially Gay Democrats

[Hosnon]

81. ^5. nt.

[Splinter Cell]

88. He's working his ass off to turn this country around....

I don't think he has time to sit around and cry like all the faux democrats do.

Obama is working to get things done. Bitching "liberals" are not.

[Dr Fate]

92. YES. n/t

n/t

[Dinger]

96. Exactly (nt)

[KeepItReal]

2. "painful compromise is baked into the system" - yeah only when the Prez is a Dem

Name the "compromise" that occurred when Bush was President and had a razor thin majority in congress?

He got just about everything he wanted steamrolled over the Democrats and passed into law.

[killbotfactory]

18. Many of the same assholes who sent us into Iraq are still sitting in the Senate

The same ones who caved to Bush because it was good for their most powerful and well-off constituents. They make up half the democratic party. Most of them were against Obama in the primaries for being too liberal, or too black, or too much of a "dove", etc. Why would you expect them to change their stripes when Obama was elected?

[Carolina]

31. "steamrolled over the Democrats" NO,

Many Dems enabled him. Edwards, Kerry, Clinton, Biden and others voted for IWR and the Patriot Act!

[treestar]

47. False

1. He had to compromise
2. There were bills he did not get
3. He had 911 and used it industriously to get things the right wanted. Anytime anyone opposed him on anything, noun, verb, 911 and it worked, since the country was scared.

[grantcart]

73. lol after Bush passed the Iraqi war Resolutution and the tax cuts

he didn't get anything passed of significance.

His two big items - immigration reform and social security didn't even get into a committee.

bush passed three big pieces of legislation

No child left behind
Iraqi War Resolution
Tax cuts.

Big fucking deal.

[SecularMotion]

3. Exactly, our attention should be focused on discrediting the Republican Noise Machine

and the forces working against the progressive agenda.

President Obama is NOT the problem.

[vi5]

4. When he gets behind liberals...

..this liberal will get behind him.

As it is, he has my vote because he's a dem and the alternative is much, much worse.

But I refuse to fight, or work hard, or donate money only to watch the needs of the democratic base, be they liberals, unions, the poor, gays, whoever, be taken given short shrift to "bipartisanship" or pragmatic politics.

I dont' care if he doesn't win every fight. But I want to see a fight. I don't want to see capitulation and compromise before the fight even starts. I don't want to see democrats framing things in right wing terms. I don't want to see economic policy built from the starting point of a belief that supply side, trickle down economics is proven fact, which has been the case with even the "successes" of financial reform and health care reform.

So yeah. I'll vote. He has the support of my one vote for what it's worth. But if he expects enthusiasm I'll need something to get enthusiastic about.

[DrDan]

6. agree - I hate the thought that the admin assumes they have libs/progressives in their pocket

simply because the alternative is much worse. But I cannot shake this feeling.

[ChiciB1]

10. My Thoughts Exactly... For NOW vi5... Just Don't Know How Long I Can

keep saying I'll give my ONE VOTE!! But I too won't work for this WH and for so many Democrats ever again, even given how terribly AWFUL the Repukes keep doing!

I OUR VERY OWN aren't willing to WORK for us, what are they expecting us to DO FOR THEM!! I'm in a constant turmoil about so very many issues that don't seem to be getting the GOOD FIGHT from the WH & D.C. Elites of our OWN Party!!!

[n2doc]

7. More like underneath the wheels of his bus n/t

[shireen]

8. we're between a rock and a hard place

and the administration knows it. That's why they're ignoring us.
They know that come election time, they will get our vote because the alternative is far far worse.

I'm not happy with Pres. Obama, and furious with many members of Congress. And I'll keep criticizing them for breaking campaign promises, and being timid and spineless. But i will end up voting Democrat anyway. What choice do i have?

[zipplewrath]

9. The same false assumption

Obama is not being "thwarted" by "institutional impediments". Obama is getting the legislative bills he wants passed. He is supporting the candidates he wants to sit in congress, and he is fighting the wars he wants to fight. This presumption that he is some how "forced" into the positions he takes is unsupportable. The congress is pushing him on DADT, they aren't holding him back. HE is holding THEM back. HE chose to support Spector, and a very enthusiastic support it was. HE chose to support Lincoln, he WANTS her in the senate, not Halter. HE didnt' want single payer anywhere near the table, much less on it. HE wanted cadillac taxes. HE wanted mandates. He wasn't forced into these positions, he chose them.

[BklnDem75]

12. Your whole post is unsupportable

What about the President needing to support incumbents of his own party, whether he agrees with them or not, don't you get? Despite Specter's loss in the primaries, we have continued support that's more solid than supposed far left champions lately. You promote a losing strategy that would have bit us on the ass if Obama supported Lincoln's opponent.

[zipplewrath]

15. He doesn't need to support them like that

His support can be anything from luke warm to whole hearted. He whole heartedly supported Spector. Clinton went and campaigned for Lincoln. His hand wasn't forced here, he willingly chose to support these people, he WANTS these people. Congress is PUSHING him on DADT. He expressed a preference for cadillac taxes over increase taxes on the wealthiest. He is choosing these things, they are not being forced upon him.

[TheKentuckian]

13. I largely agree and even if forced you have to be willing to fight battles

that might be lost.

The obsession with going "undefeated" and getting "something" passed can lead to our undoing by muddying and hobbling our ideas and policies into ineffectiveness or worse twisted mockeries that move us toward a less perfect Union that facilitates the concentration of resources and power in our country.

Real party unity is working as one to push our leaders to make the structural reforms that will promote our prosperity in both butter and soul for the next generations rather than supporting and coddling our guys perpetuate and tinker with a wholly failed ideology in a lamebrained effort to supposedly defeat it.

Either way it's a bunch of old bullshit. Either it's all theater or we allow our representatives that we work for, endorse, and vote for to play Alan Colmes to the Republican's Hannity year after tedious year all the while parroting more of their demonstrably false and failed ideology.

It is also our civic duty to not allow either set of shenanigans, no matter how awful the Republicans are at the time (and they generally are always crap).

[TheKentuckian]

14. I largely agree and even if forced you have to be willing to fight battles

that might be lost.

The obsession with going "undefeated" and getting "something" passed can lead to our undoing by muddying and hobbling our ideas and policies into ineffectiveness or worse twisted mockeries that move us toward a less perfect Union that facilitates the concentration of resources and power in our country.

Real party unity is working as one to push our leaders to make the structural reforms that will promote our prosperity in both butter and soul for the next generations rather than supporting and coddling our guys perpetuate and tinker with a wholly failed ideology in a lamebrained effort to supposedly defeat it.

Either way it's a bunch of old bullshit. Either it's all theater or we allow our representatives that we work for, endorse, and vote for to play Alan Colmes to the Republican's Hannity year after tedious year all the while parroting more of their demonstrably false and failed ideology.

It is also our civic duty to not allow either set of shenanigans, no matter how awful the Republicans are at the time (and they generally are always crap).

[Enrique]

11. and that includes you, Shirley Sherrod!

don't dwell on the negatives, think of all Obama has done for you!

[jaxx]

16. I'm with you BklnDem75.

This overt criticism is doing nothing but playing into the hands of the right wing. The President has made big gains for this country and it's time people recognized that instead of putting everything down. I'm a liberal, I've always been a liberal, and no way do I think we've been sold out.

[BklnDem75]

20. It is getting pretty ridiculous

Unfortunately, it's this 'Blame for everything, Credit for nothing' attitude that's brought life to an opposition that was once on life support.

[jgraz]

21. You can not be serious with this

OK, can you explain exactly how Democrats having the temerity to notice that their leaders aren't exactly following the principles we voted for has "brought life to an opposition that was once on life support"?

How exactly does that work? Be specific.

[BklnDem75]

22. You ask for specifics,

yet say 'we' as if you're speaking for a majority of Democrats. You're not. A vocal minority at best. How do you NOT help the opposition by downplaying every victory while blowing up every defeat? Who's helping to herd this Shirley Sherrod thing straight to the White House? Can you specify how you're NOT giving them what they want?

[jgraz]

24. I say WE as in "I and some other people".

Which dictionary did you look up "we" in?

Unlike you, I don't have an overblown perception of my power in this situation. My complaints about this administration will cost us as many votes as your exhortations will gain: exactly zero.

The only people I see giving "them" what they want is this White House, who collapses at even the hint of Republican complaint. And by pretending that it isn't true, by sticking your fingers in your ears and humming the Star Spangled Banner, you're enabling a behavior that IS going to cost us in 2010 AND 2012.

Do you want Obama to lose? Do you WANT Sarah Palin to be president? If not, why are you advocating that we support the exact behavior that loses elections?

Why do you hate our President?

[BklnDem75]

26. Did that sound idiotic to you, too?

Sorry, your type of Progressives don't win elections, so it's safe to say you're the last person to talk about behaviors that loses elections. You ask for specifics, but can't come with one sourced link claiming the WH caved to anything. So let's see... Obama signs sweeping financial overhaul/ Senate passes jobless benefits extension, OR we blame Obama for not micro managing enough. Glad we're not helping THEM.

[jgraz]

27. The truth always sounds idiotic to those in denial

And the truth is, you're helping the Democrats lose. The one unforgivable sin that an American politician can commit is to be weak, and you're supporting that behavior.

Why did we lose in 2004? Weakness

2000? Weakness.

1994? Weakness.

1988? 1984? 1980? Weakness.

And why did Poppy Bush lose in '92? Because he was perceived as WEAK.

If we lose in 2010 and/or 2012, it will be due to frightened little centrists like yourself, too afraid to face the truth.



Oh, and while we're on the subject of who wins elections, why don't you tell us all what you did during the 2008 campaign. Any phonebanking? Donations? Precinct walking? I'm guessing not. It was my type of progressives who did the heavy lifting in that election while the centrists sat home and watched it on the teevee.

[BklnDem75]

37. If you're summing losses to weakness,

then you got it twisted. You're helping Democrats lose elections. All the caving that's been done is mostly internal, so I don't know what you're talking about. It's getting more Democrats on board in the Senate that changed several landmark bills such as HCR. I don't mind being called a Centrist by someone so far left, you're out in the wilderness. You mention weakness, but your form of support is always counted on by the right because they know it's only temporary. Just like clockwork, most here are hard at work spiting their own faces.

Not sure why you bothered to ask my level of commitment during elections, as if you'd believe me. A majority of my support goes through donations to Democrats around my region, not that it's needed here in New York. Not sure what your point is, but part of my donation don't include demoralizing supporters by scouring the net, looking for any story, be it a blog or RW trash, to bash Democrats with.

[jgraz]

38. You're spouting nonsense.

I defy you to support a single assertion you've made.

"You're helping Democrats lose elections"? Prove it.

"All the caving that's been done is mostly internal"? Doesn't even make sense. Support it.

"getting more Democrats on board in the Senate that changed several landmark bills such as HCR." Really? How? Be specific.

"you're out in the wilderness"? Provably false. My views -- cut defense, raise taxes on the rich, end the wars, enact Single Payer -- are shared by a majority of Americans.

"your form of support is always counted on by the right because they know it's only temporary"? Barely parses as English. Explain yourself.

"Not sure why you bothered to ask my level of commitment during elections"... Really? You questioned mine. Last campaign, I spent hours in a phone bank in Oakland with "my kind of progressives" -- in addition to donating out the ass to local and national candidates (including and especially Obama). You just admitted that what little effort you contributed didn't even have much of an effect. Care to revise your statement on who's helping win elections?


Oh, and until you learn the meaning of the word "summing" and learn how to spell "spitting", you might want to lighten up on calling other people "idiotic". Just sayin...

[BklnDem75]

39. It's wasted on you, so I'll pass

Main Entry: 2spite
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): spit·ed; spit·ing

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/spite

Hope that helps

[jgraz]

45. No, you'll pass cuz you got nothin

And if that was the word you actually intended to use, Professor Palin, you used it incorrectly. Why don't you go refudiate somebody?

[BklnDem75]

48. Ok... I'll bite

"getting more Democrats on board in the Senate that changed several landmark bills such as HCR." Really? How? Be specific.


Sunday night's votes capped an unpredictable and raucous weekend at the capitol, with Democratic leaders negotiating around the clock for the final votes as hundreds of protesters paraded outside, their shouts of "Kill the Bill! Kill the Bill!" audible within the Capitol.

A last-minute deal with a critical group of anti-abortion lawmakers Sunday afternoon sealed Democrats' victory. The leader of the anti-abortion bloc, Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., didn't get to add stricter anti-abortion language to the underlying bill, but was satisfied by an executive order signed by Obama affirming current law and provisions in the legislation that ban federal funding for abortions except in cases of rape, incest or danger to the life of the mother.

Republican abortion foes said Obama's proposed order was insufficient, and when Stupak sought to counter them, a shout of "baby killer" was heard coming from the Republican side of the chamber.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35961584/


Not that I needed to post this. Not sure why I bothered because you CHOSE willful ignorance over fact.

[jgraz]

49. I can only conclude that you meant to paste in another story.

You cite a story about a vote in the House of Representatives to support your claim that Senate Democrats somehow changed the bill? Are you even reading what you post?

Let's pretend you just meant to respond to someone else, and you can take another crack at actually supporting your assertions. Am I not merciful?

[BklnDem75]

50. More willful ignorance?

WASHINGTON — Prodded by President Barack Obama, Senate Democrats won tentative backing from one holdout and worked intensely to satisfy another Tuesday as they grappled with the last, lingering disputes blocking passage of health care legislation by Christmas.

Despite the push, Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska remained publicly uncommitted — even after a private meeting with Obama.


Two days after jolting the leadership by threatening to oppose the measure if it included an expansion of Medicare, Lieberman said that with the agreed-upon changes, "I'm going to be in a position where I can say what I've wanted to say all along: that I'm ready to vote for health care reform."

Lieberman's opposition to the Medicare expansion proposal drew the ire of many progressives. At Tuesday's White House meeting, he addressed some of his harshest critics by stressing his independence.


http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/34430563/ns/38180319

[jgraz]

51. OK, this is actually a story about the Senate. Getting better...

However, it's a story about Obama capitulating to an allegedly Democratic senator and a formerly Democratic senator, thus fucking over the Public Option. How is this helping your argument?

Or is your argument that Obama was so weak that he had to cave on his signature piece of legislation in order to get a member of his own party to support him? That seems like it basically makes my case for me. While I appreciate the help, I don't understand why you're doing it.

[BklnDem75]

55. Since you lost my point,

it was to remind you that most of the changes happened within the party. Now I'm not gonna get into a rant-fest of how the PO was removed. You've been all for killing the bill, so any conversation is lost on this matter.

[jgraz]

58. So caving to LIEberman was "within the party"?

Doesn't make sense to me. I seem to remember the whole thing being about Snowe and Collins and Holy Joe. Nelson barely counts as a Democrat but, again, the fact that Obama had to cave to members of his own party is an even bigger sign of weakness than having to negotiate with Repukes.

The President is the goddamn head of his party. He has absolute control over the campaign pursestrings. He could have threatened Nelson's seat if he didn't fall in line. But for some reason, Obama chose to cave in to him instead.

[BklnDem75]

60. Maybe you want a dictator

The President never had the power to force any Senator to do anything. Yes he could have threatened Nelson and lost 3 shaky votes in the process. I thought Progressives hated that term 'fall in line'.

[Name removed]

64. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jgraz]

72. My, what a sensible comment

See panel 4

[brentspeak]

80. "I thought Progressives hated that term 'fall in line'"

Thank you for admitting that you're here to bait.

[Umbral]

89. .

[Umbral]

90. That would explain why the OP commanded Progressives to 'fall in line'....

even knowing full well what the reaction would be.

[BklnDem75]

93. Commanded...

You get nowhere making shit up.

[Umbral]

98. Read the title, it's a command, not a request. nt

[BklnDem75]

102. Actually... wrong

You don't state your case while giving a command. If the title was all he wrote, you would've had a point. He's giving a suggestion more than a request, but not close to a command.

[BklnDem75]

94. Not bait...

Simply an observation

[girl gone mad]

44. Oh, bullshit.

Obama ran to the left. He campaigned far to the left of Clinton on most issues. Republicans called him a socialist, for fuck's sake. And he still won. His main campaign slogan was "change". How much more liberal can you get than that? He won because people thought he would be a fighter for them, and start reversing the damage done by Bush. What voters don't like is the kind of timidity and effeteness that Obama regularly displays now that he's in power.

[flamingdem]

17. All these "liberal" organizations attack Obama to get reader$ - more greed in the U$A nt

[FrenchieCat]

25. Oh....those Liberals know that they.....

...."fails to take into account the significant institutional impediments that are thwarting Obama and, in, turn, a larger progressive agenda."

But they don't care....cause in the end, if things can't be perfect and achieved easily,
these accomplishments are discounted for no other reason than the fact that some believe
that the current political circumstances closely resembles those of Sweden,
and of course, they are wrong and the sad truth is that they actually know this.

[spoony]

29. You're not a liberal? nt

[RBInMaine]

30. Nice post. This progressive purity shit needs to go. It is insane.

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[kjackson227]

34. +1

[ProgressOnTheMove]

35. Exactly he was not given the power of a dictator. Midterms could make a world of difference if we..

back him up. I mean you're in football game and your own side and the opponents side are jeering how can anyone play a great game. It's time to back him up and get the job done.

[MadHound]

36. You know, I would get behind the president more, if he would get behind me.

Instead, he has launched a direct assault on me and my profession, namely teaching and public education. In fact his assault on the education field has directly resulted in my failure to find a job in my chosen field.

Hard to support somebody who is bent on destroying your professional life.

[old mark]

40. I'll gladly get behind him if I can push him to the left.....I will certainly vote for him

again in '12, but this time I won't expect much. I just want a democratic place holder so the republicans don't get one of their idiots elected - I don't want to have to leave the US, and I believe any of the current crop of GOP "leaders" will ruin the nation beyond repair if elected.
Therefor, I HOPE Obama wins a second term.

I will start looking for the NEXT Democratic presidential candidate-a REAL Democrat-right after that election...maybe sooner.


mark

[JoeyT]

42. None of that is why I'm iffy about him.

Even though I do support him on stuff that he deserves it on. Most of the stuff listed was sort of middle ground stuff...It wasn't really good, but it wasn't godawful either. Protecting war criminals and committing war crimes of your own: That's godawful.

Before the "OMFG WHAT CRIMES?!?!?!? LIIEEES!": Guantanamo closed yet? Assassinations without trials for US citizens? Indefinite detention? etc etc. All this stuff is pretty well documented, and when it's brought up most people either ignore it or break out the authoritarian "I TRUST DEAR LEADER WHY DON'T YOU?!" argument. Mostly because there's no other defense. So it's a bit disingenuous to claim we're pissed we didn't get a pony. Unless you consider the Constitution and various international treaties "ponies".

[Jim Sagle]

56. Whadda buncha shit.

[grahamhgreen]

68. +1

[Dr Fate]

65. Did volunteer work and gave cash in the primaries and general.

Voted for him and hopefully convinced others to do the same.

I've held up my end of the bargain.

I want him to force Blue Dogs and to DLCers compromise away some of their conservative positions in the same way he seems to expect Liberals to compromise away their issues. War spending would be a great start. Accuse me of fucking "wanting a pony" all you want, but this is what I want to see before I can trust these guys too far.

Centrists just piss me off when they try to "unify" me by threatening me or scaring me to side with them or else- "unify" me with the party by agreeing that DEMS should support more of the Liberal/DEM base agenda.

[iamthebandfanman]

69. yes, TY mister president for tons of watered down

half assed legislation that ultimately does nothing to drastically change THE REAL PROBLEMS with the issues addressed.


:)

[SeattleGirl]

71. Actually, your thanks should go to the Republicans and the

likes of Ben Nelson for that.

Unless, of course, you think that they have absolutely NO responsibility for those watered down bills and Obama has ALL the responsibility. :)

[Scurrilous]

70. K & R

:thumbsup:

[AtomicKitten]

74. I boarded this ride a long time ago. I have kept my arms and legs inside the car at all times. nt

[NJmaverick]

77. K&R

[Cha]

78. Thanks Brooklyn~

Glad Michael Cohen gets it!

[brentspeak]

79. American Security Project is a self-declared bipartisan think tank

I'm not sure why we're all supposed to be impressed by some research fellow at a centrist bipartisan think tank lecturing non-centrists to stay in line.

http://www.americansecurityproject.org/content/about/

The American Security Project is a non-profit, bipartisan public policy and research organization dedicated to fostering knowledge and understanding of a range of national security issues, promoting debate about the appropriate use of American power, and cultivating strategic responses to 21st century challenges.

[Dr Fate]

91. President (my employee), get behind your employers,citizen donors, activists and Liberal supporters.

Unify your party- not with fear and threats of Sarah Pailin-not by "working with" foreign and conservative owned corporations-but by going home with the folks who brought you to the dance.

[treestar]

95. It's ridiculous to think of the President as your employee

If that's the case, he's my employee too, and I may want him to do different things.

[derby378]

99. Dr. Fate's sentiment, however, is correct...

...and this song pretty much sums it up:

You got to dance with who brung you
Swing with who swung you
Don't be a fickle fool
You came here with a gal
Who's always been your pal
Don't leave her for the first unattached girl, it just ain't cool
You got to dance with who brung you
Swing with who swung you
Life ain't no 40-yard dash
Be in it for the long run
'Cause in the long run you'll have more fun
If you dance with who brung you to the bash

I had a friend from Texas, he really had some style
He sang that good ol' Western Swing and drove 'em wild
Then a talent scout from Vegas said "Boy, play and sing this way"
And in one short year he was broke and in LA

You got to dance with who brung you
Swing with who swung you
Don't be a fickle fool
You came here with a gal
Who's always been your pal
Don't leave her for the first unattached girl, it just ain't cool
You got to dance with who brung you
Swing with who swung you
Life ain't no 40-yard dash
Be in it for the long run
'Cause in the long run you'll have more fun
If you dance with who brung you to the bash

You gotta be real careful what you wish for
'Cause you just might get the whole darn thing
Be sure what you want is something you can use
Or you might wind up half dead, just singing the Blues

You got to dance with who brung you
Swing with who swung you
Don't be a fickle fool
You came here with a gal
Who's always been your pal
Don't leave her for the first unattached girl, it just ain't cool
You got to dance with who brung you
Swing with who swung you
Life ain't no 40-yard dash
Be in it for the long run
'Cause in the long run you'll have more fun
If you dance with who brung you to the bash

[treestar]

100. Silly

and President will have been elected by a coalition of voters whose interests can easily collide on various issues.