Why just President Obama? How about we don't vote for any Democrats next election?

[NNN0LHI]

People are suggesting here that they would rather have Rick Perry as president so we can all hit rock bottom sooner rather than later.

So why just replace Obama with a Republican? Why not get rid of the entire group of current elected Democrats and replace them all with Republicans and bring us to rock bottom faster?

So then after that we can get to work on building things back up to the way we like it some day? Wouldn't that make more sense?

Wouldn't that be the logical thing to do?

What do you think?

Don

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

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

[cali]

14. why? seems pretty logical to me.

[Bonobo]

19. Sorry to hear that you can't recognize how the OP conflated things

to the point of absurdity.

[robcon]

24. Not logical, and very stupid.

n/t

[butterfly77]

2. Ok...

[mahina]

3. If W didn't disprove that thinking, I don't know what could.

We were lazy and maybe uninspired in 2000 and look where that got us. I'm sure Perry would create a whole new meaning to the word 'bottom out'.

[Occulus]

42. W only *broke* stuff.

Perry or Bachmann would introduce open fascism. Given the number of people in this country who are actually sane but don't pay any attention to politics (I'm not talking about independents here; I'm speaking of nonvoters), I think either one would be dealt with in fairly short order.

All those people are asleep right now. I think what that one, single statement in that one post was trying to say is that a Perry or a Bachmann would wake them up.

I myself made a fairly long and more detailed post about the same thing some time ago. The concept is related to a drug addict or alcoholic hitting "rock bottom" before they will accept your help, and I think the poster you're talking about (and myself) feels that Republicans gaining complete control would mean that they would never, ever have it again once they lost it.

The problem with that, of course, is that they would take us all with us. That also happens to be the trigger of the aforementioned apolitical nonvoters. I believe I mentioned at the time I wrote about this how dangerous the idea is; it's analagous to going "all in" in poker, with one fun additional rule: we can't tell if we're holding a flush or a pair.

[mahina]

4. Anyway...waiting for the perfect candidate isn't the answer. If we step back, we're irrelevant.

It's all about community building and momentum, and keeping the networks intact.

Can do, folks.

[Pab Sungenis]

16. Losing the House last year did have one good effect.

It can be argued that Obama losing the percentage of the gay vote that he did (from 90% support to 70%) may have helped flip some districts away from the Democrats. So he tried to win us back with DADT and by no longer comparing our relationships to incest and pedophilia in court filings. We may even see a REAL push to repeal DOMA.

If we keep up the pressure, and let him know that our votes aren't to be taken for granted, maybe he'll start governing the way he ran for office. If he knows we'll vote for him right or wrong he'll have no incentive to do what's right.

He himself said to hold his feet to the fire and we are.

[BzaDem]

5. I would love to see the "rock bottom is good, so we we can rebuild" folks answer this. n/t

[Pab Sungenis]

18. First you have to find them.

[Bluenorthwest]

31. Filed under 'straw' just after the new remake of 'Straw Dogs'

nt

[BzaDem]

40. Oh I assure you, there is no problem at all finding them. An OP that got plenty of recs proposed

just that.

Whether they will come and answer this OP is a different question.

[Le Taz Hot]

6. I've seen ONE PERSON write about hitting rock bottom.

Besides, your OP title is against DU rules if I'm not mistaken.

[NNN0LHI]

8. Alert on it if you think it is against the rules

[Le Taz Hot]

9. The mods can read a subject line

just as well as I can.

[Occulus]

36. For some here, one person becomes "people" in the same way as when

your Mom came into your bedroom when you were a teen, saw a single dirty sock and acted as though the floor were covered with them.

Well, okay. And a shoe.

[malaise]

7. ROFL

:rofl:

[Pab Sungenis]

10. You have the message completely wrong.

If it comes down to Obama v. Perry I sincerely doubt anyone here would vote for Perry like you claim we would. We'd just rather have a better option.

And if it came down to Obama v. Perry, what are the real differences? On one side, Medicare and Social Security cuts. On the other, Medicare and Social Security cuts.

On one side, even longer wars. On the other, even longer wars.

On one side, more tax cuts for the wealthy. On the other, more tax cuts on the wealthy.

Really, the only differences would be that the Administration (claims to) no longer actively fight(s) gay rights in the courts, and we'd get more "center-right" Supreme Court nominees instead of "right."

[BzaDem]

13. Have you read Perry's book? Maybe you should do a little research. Perry believes that

Social Security and Medicare are both unconstitutional federal programs. He would likely appoint judicial nominees that would rule those programs (and those types of programs) as unconstitutional options for any future progressive Congress to consider over the next 30 years (or however long his judicial appointments remain on the court). He also believes almost all federal regulation is similarly unconstitutional, which puts him in agreement with the Supreme Court from 1905-1937 (which struck down most economic regulations).

So while Perry would almost certainly end Medicare as it exists today, if not entirely (going far beyond "cuts"), that would just be the tip of the iceberg.

Still think there's no difference?

[polmaven]

23. it is really getting ludicrous, isn't it?

The only difference between Rick Perry....RICK PERRY....and President Obama is that Perry may be slightly worse regarding gay issues! That is, without a doubt, on of the more unreasoned opinions I have seen yet.

[mahina]

15. Are you kidding?

With Perry we would lose the EPA, the Department of Education, pretty much our entire safety net or the shreds of it that remain...I don't even want to think about it.

If you actually think that there is no difference between Perry and Obama,

oh the hell with it, I'm going to bed. This place is making me feel ill.

[Pab Sungenis]

17. And under Obama

we have an Education Department decimated by Arne Duncan to the point where it might as well not exist, a lackluster EPA, and the promise of severe cuts to Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security in the name of deficit reduction.

[polmaven]

26. Please show me a link

where the president stated a "promise" of "severe cuts" to Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.

[emulatorloo]

45. He can't show a link, because it is a fabrication.

[polmaven]

51. Of course it is!

[emulatorloo]

44. You need to do more research on Perry. He's Sarah Palin in a suit, he's a theocrat,

he beleives social security and medicare are unconstitutional

[Kahuna]

11. Thought we already hit rock bottom with bushco.....

:shrug:

[Pab Sungenis]

21. We did, but

Obama brought out the jackhammers.

[Kahuna]

48. Utter Nonsense. nt

[elocs]

12. A lot of Democrat apparently did that last fall here in WI--stayed home & didn't vote.

That didn't work out so well for most of us here.

[Bluenorthwest]

34. And yet here, we had huge turn out and not one Democratic loss

While our elected Democrats continue to speak their own minds and hold their own principles rather than fold themselves up to fit snugly in Obama's pocket.
Seems to me that the posters who call for zero criticism of the administration tend to come from States that lost so many, many seats, and those who are more honest and direct tend to come from States that did not fail to get the voters to vote.
What if the two styles are not 'support' v 'criticism' but actually 'losing methods' v 'winning methods'?
Would you rather hear all love songs and lose, or hear some dust ups and win? If I criticize policy, yet elect Democrats to Congress, and another refuses all criticism while electing Republicans to Congress, who is actually lending useful support?

[mfcorey1]

20. That rethuglican idea won't fly.

[HereSince1628]

22. No offense Don, but this is a contribution to a DU genre that is weak AND increasingly BORING

Objections to unspecified numbers of unnamed duers and a 'if we stay home the republicans win' message suggests a you have desire to revive the disaffected and build a base to challenge the r's.

But...what you've provided is just the umpteenth version of that standard comeback. "We must run against republicans because they are republicans" and "dems aren't doing the job, but we REALLY won't like republican governance." It is not much of a rallying cry.

Indeed, it suggests that our side (and I do include you and me in our side) hasn't a product that can be marketed on its own appeal.

And I suggest that the reason that some duers are posting about their discouragement is that our side really ISN'T out there presenting ideas that are appealing to the base.

Our side seems flat busted or uninterested in plans that would excite the base and cause most of us to show up at rallies and cry out in support for leaders who express commitment to making still unfulfilled dreams happen.

Flogging the base to rally to the defense or suffer the tyranny of republican/t-party/corporatism relies on fear. Fear and punishment is the tool of CONSERVATIVES. It's actually unlikely to rally the discouraged left, some of whom sit before their keyboards dreaming about hitting bottom, from where the only direction is UP.

The left isn't afraid, it's discouraged. Given a progressive cause to serve the left will rise up and die fighting. I'm in Wisconsin and I've seen the people rise up and dedicate themselves to political struggle. It is still very possible to get throngs of people moving FOR progressive ideas.

Since the politicians are short on ideas about what the base should be rallying for, perhaps DU icons like yourself
could contribute to a new DU genre, something that could be given a title like...

"Political dreams almost all DUers would rally behind."

Maybe that genre would give the party Wags something to read and discuss beside evidence that Rahm Emmanuel was right when he licensed the party to take the base for granted saying...the base will always be there for dems because the alternative is republicans.

Unity of purpose is a by-product of sharing dreams. What the hell has happened to the party's capacity to inspire a shared dream?

[Bluenorthwest]

35. That is so well said I will add no more.

nt

[Major Hogwash]

39. Then don't bother reading it, much less responding to it.

I don't respond to half of the firebagger crap put on here.
It's not worth my time.

[Little Star]

46. Nicely Stated HereSince1628!

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

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

[polmaven]

28. Are you actually saying

you will actively campaign against a Democrat in a final election against a Republican? Because of his/her debt deal vote? Now that would be helpful...I'm sure the the compromise wouldn't have been necessary with the Republican in office.

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[joshcryer]

27. Where is this idea coming from? The "rock bottom" meme.

[JoePhilly]

32. Here's one from yesterday ....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=1779365&mesg_id=1779365

[joshcryer]

43. Thanks, I got it now.

I didn't know we'd gone that far, to actually start posting against the Democratic Party as a whole.

I'm all for it, naturally.

But until you provide a network that can be credible and viable, I'm not going to buy in to it.

[Little Star]

30. Can we get through primary season first before we have..

general election arguments????????????????????????????????????

1) We need a viable primary democratic challenger or three

2) No one knows who the hell is going to get the republican nod

3) If we end up with our only dem choice being Obama, the greater majority of us will still vote for dem!


Lets get real!


Now, I want a primary challenge to Obama. What you got to say about that?

First things first! All else is a waste of energy.

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

This week is our third quarter 2011 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Please take a moment to donate! Thank you!

Click here to donate

[Major Hogwash]

37. That's pretty much what they did back in 1980.

Stayed home and let the R's have control of the Senate while Reagan was led into the White House and told what to sign.
Over 35 Democrats lost their seats in the House, and for the next 6 years, this country went on a downhill slide unlike it since the 1930s.

McConnell would be happier than hell to find out that some Dems don't intend to vote.
His "slash and burn" obstructionist tactics in the Senate would have played out just the way he wanted them to.

[NNN0LHI]

41. I lived through the 1980's. If you can call that living? More like barely surviving

Trying to raise and support a young family through that mess was not easy.

I know all about the 1980's.

Don

[hobbit709]

38. I'd rather have a "NONE OF THE ABOVE" option.

I have a feeling that None would win a lot of offices.

[LWolf]

47. I will do what I do in every election.

Vote for the candidates that have earned my vote.

Any Democrat on my ballot that has earned my vote gets it, as always.

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

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

[mazzarro]

50. Because he is the head of the party that has gone soft in all respect!

If he puts up a fight every so often, then the party is more energized to respond in kind and the so called "blue dogs/DLC'ers, etc" will become less influential in stirring the party and its responses into complacency with every rethug idea in the vain hope of winning the rethugs over.

[lib2DaBone]

52. No one is suggesting that we have Rick Perry...

The problem is... Obama IS a Republican.

It is very hard to defend an attack from within. The Koch Bros and the Bilderbergs were very smart when they gave us Obama.

[treestar]

53. Because those offices are beneath those people

The ones who say that are obsessed with the top, that is, the Presidency. They don't recognize its limits and the Constitution's provision for its limitations. They don't want to have to bother with things like Congressional and State powers or the judiciary. Their fantasy of a savior who takes on the role of benign dictator is interfered with when you make them consider this stuff.