ummm, hello there Mr. TBogg.

In case you haven’t noticed, a lot of what you wrote as a precaution for abandoning support for the present prez has already happened, all over the country.

Voter ID laws, very restrictive rules and regs WRT access to the full range of women’s health care, Planned ParentHood under attack, Medicare and Social Security on the Chopping Block but nosireee, not Banksters’ heads, and Republican state legislatures getting their grubby little Mitts on state constitutions and using them as TP.

There’s lots more, but you get my drift, I’m sure.

All under Obama’s 2 1/2 years as prez. Where’s the push-back, where’s the opposition to all this?

Very happy to see Fenway on the mend, one good thing going on these days. ;)

Yes, it’s so disappointing that the Supreme and Benevolent and Almighty Absolute Ruler of SuperFuckingGroovyLand didn’t decree that all laws passed legally by state legislatures be declared null and void.

Thank you Mr. Bogg. Thank you.

Every two years we have elections for Congressional seats and governors, and every four we vote for the President.

Now, say that historically there has been a difference in the type of policies pursued by Democrats and Republicans, and there have been differences in outcomes as a result. To be a whore for a second, I co-authored a book published last year (Presimetrics) that got almost no press which essentially looked – objectively, using data – at how Presidents did on a wide range of issues, everything from abortion to the national debt, and I can tell you that, objectively, the difference does exist.

If a Democrat comes along who is indistinguishable from Republicans on most issues in terms of policies (and the degree to which it comes from conviction v. rolling over is irrelevant), he will produce Republican outcomes. I’m sure this scenario isn’t looking all that far fetched.

But what effect does this have on the future? Well, for one, expect Democrat policies to be blamed for the Great Recession that started before he took office – helped by the fact that Obama has essentially agreed that the way forward is to keep existing Republican policies and to implement more of them. Without Obama, there would be a public debate on whether it could possibly be a coincidence that both the Great Depression and the Great Recession occurred after a decade of lackluster growth (albeit with great press), tax cuts (with great press) and deregulation (also with great press). But if the Democrats are willing to follow the same policies, the debate is over. As the face of the party, Obama also encourages those Democrats who are more prone to follow Republican policies (again, whether out of conviction or by rolling over is irrelevant).

The point is, the longer Obama is in office, the more what little there is that distinguishes Democrats from Republicans disappears. Worse, Obama isn’t creating a party that looks up to Eisenhower & Gerald Ford policies, he’s creating a party that looks up to Bush 2 policies. Imagine what the next Democrat running for office might look like after eight years of Obama.

Obama doesn’t resemble St. Ebba to me. The analogy I’d pick is some guy who leaves his family for the short term high of a cocaine addiction.

(I should note – I’m not a flaming liberal. I think I’m best described as just slightly left of center.)

Mike, Tbogg is not comparing Obama to St. Ebba. He is comparing left wing abandoners of Obama to St. Ebba and the Ellen Jamesians. You complicate the issue. The issue, as I would frame it, is that Obama has demonstrated that he is not the Great Left Wing Savior that many of us on the left might have hoped for. OK. But he is still a far more secure choice for 2012 than the seemingly “sane and centrist” alternative in the Republican Party, be it Romney or Huntsman. For evidence of this argument, he offers the seemingly “sane and centrist” campaign of George. W. Bush.

Now, virtually all of the Nader voters in 2000 confidently asserted that Bush and Gore were indistinguishable from one another.

Question: How did that work out?

As I see it, THAT is the issue of this thread of comments. Meanderings about “the Democrats” miss the point.

To say I have been disappointed with Obama’s administration is an understatement. HOWEVER, I will vote for a second term for the man. The alternatives–either a Republican president or some other slack-jawed and spineless Democrat–are too hideous to contemplate.

RIP Clarence Clemons:

http://www.tmz.com/2011/06/18/clarence-clemons-died-dies-dead-saxophonist-bruce-springstreen-e-street-band/

And the Naderites were ridiculous on their face. While Clinton was a demonstrably more right President then any Democrat before him, there were distinct differences between Clinton policies and Bush policies beyond Roe V. Wade. And Gore had not been President for four years and with few exceptions ignored the positions he ran on to be war mongering, civil liberties destroying ass, with an eye to destroy both Social Security and Medicare.

Part of the problem is that so many of our elected officials are moderate Republicans who just happen to actually registered as Democrats. With a Democratic house and Senate with leadership more reminiscent of Johnson, this President would have been pushed to the left. Instead he was able to use allies like Nelson and Baucus to move Congress right. But the with a strong Democratic congress we might not have a Roberts led court. So this is just another way of saying that I’m tired of not getting a democrat when I help get one elected.

And I feel no reason to vote for the non-Democrat in the White House to have four more years right at the moment. As I keep saying – similar to Wisconsin – going to hell faster might wake up the people. I don’t know, the outcome is so horrible, I’m wary. But it is a choice I do not have to make for over another year.

And you know what will really teach a lesson to Obama for not being the dope, guns and fucking in the streets president? When Ruth Bader Ginsburg keels over and her successor is appointed by President Romney. Boy, I’ll bet Obama will be hurt!

Yes, it could be lots, lots worse. But unless we purge the Democratic Party of Obama, Hairplug Joe and their ilk, it’s going to get lots, lots worse anyway because the Dems won’t fight for what we believe in. It may take eight years instead of one, but with no Dems willing to stand up to the Republicans on anything, it’s still inevitable.

All we can do is control the Democratic Party. And the only way to control it is to reward the Dems who do what we want them to do and punish those who don’t. That means turning out for those who press for our agenda and staying home for those who don’t.

We’re better off with a Democratic minority that’s willing to fight for Democratic principles than a Democratic majority that’s not. Wisconsin has proven that.

I won’t vote for Obama regardless of who runs against him. And if someone like Mitt, who at least isn’t certifiable, is Obama’s opponent, I’ll vote for him.

Politicians like Obama shouldn’t even be in the Democratic Party, much less running it. It’s time to start trying to throw them out.

How on earth are we “better off” being a minority group of left wing advocates who have zero chance of getting anything passed in Congress, with a right wing President controlling the next nomination to the Supreme Court, and a Congress willing to roll back rights for women and minorities, prohibiting rights to gays, destroying our environment etc?

Sure there are things Pres Obama has done that I disagree with. But I also recognize and appreciate what he has accomplished in 2 1/2 years.

The extreme left needs to get a grip. They are sounding more and more like spoiled brats who threaten to hold their breath until they got what they want. Very mature…

That’s why they call ‘em firebaggers.

We’re better off with a Democratic minority that’s willing to fight for Democratic principles than a Democratic majority that’s not. Wisconsin has proven that.

How exactly has Wisconsin proven that? Sure the base is fired up and gotten recalls on 6 Republicans but damaging legislation is still getting passed and those recall elections aren’t won yet.

The one thing that all Republicans seem to agree on is IOKIYAR. They support their own through thick and thin and won’t let anyone get forced out if they can. Dems are always the first to turn on the promulgator of any perceived slight the Repubs care to claim, so of course, they’ll claim all of them.

The Rs play the Ds like a violin. Surely 8 years of Bush should have shown most sane people that there is in fact a difference between Ds and Rs? And all those people who needed to learn that lesson were what, 4% of the voting public, but those who were given it turned out to be 90% of the population.

When you are given 2 choices there is a thing called the lesser of 2 evils for a reason.

Well, I guess they would point out how much better off the nation was during the administrations of Eugene McCarthy, George McGovern, Ted Kennedy, and Ralph Nader, than it would have been if they had backed right wingers Hubert Humphrey, Jimmy Carter, and Al Gore. Oh, I forgot. Those progressive dream candidates never came close to winning a national election. Instead, they helped give us Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, George Bush, and son of George Bush.

Apparently then the choice is doing nothing and going along or destroying the democratic party. Right?

The point has been made many times that if you tell the guy I don’t like what he is doing, but no matter what you do I’m going to vote for you anyway you’ve got no (as in none) barginaning power. You lose.

As far as the terrible people who didn’t vote for Gore are concerned whose fault was that? I’d suggest a candadite who gave them little or nothing to vote for. Oh, and by the way Gore did win that election you know, but in order to keep a nice and calm America people did not riot in the streets as they would have in any functioning democracy when that election was stolen by the supreme court with the demoratic senate going along.

Obama voted for FISA and I still worked for him, but no more. As somebody up thread said it will take one year or eight years but both the democrats and republicans are heading in the same direction.

Lecturing the people who do the work and vote about the loyalty they owe their masters is a little well sad. If I can’t withhold my vote and my energy what power do I have?

Instead of whining that Obama didn’t give you the rainbow-pooping pony and going into a pout, how about copying what the repubs did? Start pushing more reliably liberal local candidates, including members of Congress, so in the future they can outvote the bluedogs. Politics is about counting votes and the single stupidest strategy is staying home in a WATB pout so you don’t have any voice, and the second stupidest is going Nader and throwing it down the toilet as some half-assed protest. I’m sure all the people killed in Bushs wars understand that you just couldn’t possibly have voted for Gore in 2000 because he wasn’t quite pure enough for you. After all, the world should revolve around YOUR political sensibilities. …
…
I swear, firebaggers are as self-centered as the teabaggers…

Where progressive legislation goes to die.

You know, there are a lot of points to be made about this and TBogg and Scarecrow each made some of them, but anyone trying to make the argument for voting for Barack Obama because of the absolute moral imperative of avoiding Bush-like wars is displaying a lot of chutzpah accusing others of living in a fairy tale land.

You should go chat up the folks talking about “political game theory” over at this MyFDL diary. Not that they would actually listen, because they’re convinced that pledging loyalty to a single party means you cede away your power to effect change.

As I’ve told folks over and over, the Republicans actually pay lefty third-party types to do what they do. They love lefty third parties precisely because they peel off votes that would otherwise go to the Democrats.

But when it comes to righty third parties, the Republican attitude is hostile in the extreme, as they know they’re a threat to GOP hegemony. This is shown by the speed at which the Republicans moved, with the Koch brothers and Dick Armey tasked to do so, to co-opt and reabsorb the original, largely secular, TEA Party
back into the GOP fold:

In a bid to advance the tea party movement from holding rallies to holding office, the leaders of the anti-establishment groups announced a new political organization Friday that they say will “endorse, support and elect” conservatives across the country.

Mark Skoda, chairman of The Memphis TEA Party, made the announcement at a news conference in the middle of the National Tea Party Convention in Nashville. Though he said the group — Ensuring Liberty Corporation and an affiliated political action committee — is “distinct and separate” from other parts of the tea party movement, including convention organizer Tea Party Nation, the announcement was the closest thing so far to a national organizing strategy for the upcoming 2010 midterm elections [...]

The announcement came with an official platform that could help define what the multi-faceted tea party movement stands for and expects from the candidates it supports. The group’s leaders plan to support candidates who stand for a set of “First Principles.”

Those principles are: fiscal responsibility, lower taxes, less government, states’ rights and national security. Prospective political candidates will be expected to support the Republican National Committee platform. If a particular candidate meets the proposed criteria he or she would be eligible for fundraising and grassroots support.

Once elected to office, members would be expected to join a congressional caucus of “like-minded representatives” who attend regular meetings and are held accountable for the votes they cast. Those who stray from the tea party path would risk losing the new organization’s support and a possible re-election challenge.

You know what’s REALLY sad?

Having this argument again, as though there’s anything left to save.

There isn’t. The middle class is over in this country, and a lot of other stuff along with it.

That’s not saying that life under Democratic leadership wouldn’t be slightly better than life under the Republican boot, but either way, there’s not much left to fight over, because one of the parties has decided that it can’t hold power if there is broad prosperity, and so its goal from here on out is to prevent broad prosperity…and it can do that almost effectively as the “minority” opposition party as it can when it controls both the presidency and the Congress. And there are enough stupid bigots in the country to guarantee this party enough seats that it can effectively stymie any progress.

So why fight over the vanishingly small differences that result from “winning” as opposed to “losing” elections? Your time would be better spent in calculating an escape. Because this bitch is OVER. The only thing that can fix it now is dumb, angry mobs, and of course, we may not (almost assuredly WILL not) like what the “fix” that follows that will look like. Also, too: it’s a lot easier to point and laugh from a distance, if it’s not your shit getting all fucked up. And life is short.

So what to do?

The republican power boys fake out the Tea Baggers but still give them their social legislation while continuing to steal from them economically.

The democratic power boys give the rank and file a few crumbs from their table, not even the kind of social legislation the Tea Baggers get from the republican bosses.

I’ve been through a thousand fights with friends who are Naderites over the 2000 elections, but even if I love them I’ll never forgive them for their part in giving us George W. Bush. And I’ll never be stupid enough to vote against the Democratic candidate in a national election.

Pete Defazio is my Rep and this is the type of guy he is (along with being named The Nation Magazine’s Top Representative):

DeFazio has refused to accept congressional pay raises while the government is deficit spending, and has linked his pay to Social Security cost-of-living adjustments. Instead, he has used his pay raises to reduce the national debt and to fund scholarships at five southwestern Oregon community colleges; by the end of 2011, DeFazio will have contributed $334,000 of after-tax salary toward 207 scholarships and debt reduction.

Defazio, a progressive Dem, wins the redneck vote in a large, rural district. Why? Because he’s a good Representative.

He’s a regular on AM620 (Portland Oregon’s progressive radio, podcasts available) on Wednesday mornings (about 6:35 Pacific Time).

He’ll take calls from anyone. If you want to talk with someone who knows how the sausage is made, give him a call. He’s not all starbursts for Obama but understands the consequences, better than most, of a republican alternative. And, if you really want to hear a rant, ask him about how The Senate functions….

Lives of the Saints, eh? My, my, my.

Just so. I first voted in 1968, for Hubert Humphrey, and the sanctimonious McCarthyites really pissed me off.

Precisely. The overreach by the Reps in Wisconsin has provoked a reaction, and the signature-gathering sure does make people feel good, and if the recalls succeed then the tipped Senate will put a brake on things getting much. much worse, and if the governor is recalled that will help, and if the Assembly is taken back next year then the Dems can begin to start on undoing the damage that is still being done. Just getting Wisconsin labor law back to where it was before the last election will take years at best, and many people project that it will never fully happen. And that’s ignoring all the other damage they have done and continue to do. Now scale that up to a national level …

I suspect that I am to the left of most of these Obama-complainers, but I do not see this country being in an imminently prerevolutionary state and I see no reason to avoid choosing the “lesser evil” — which is I think an unfair characterization of a decent and intelligent guy trying and not always succeeding to do his best. Lobby on issues, not on demonization. You want a congressional resolution on Libya? Go for it, just figure out how to dissociate yourself from Boehner first. You want Guantanamo closed? Figure out how to get the funding through Congress. And on and on.

What is wrong with us?

We just have to remember 2 names of old and sick SC Justices, Ginsburg and Kennedy.

And the potential of Fat Tony having one too many sausages, and Tea Party Clarence suffering the effects of his new level of shame.

Being President means getting to replace up to 4 of these.

Like Citizen’s United?, we can get rid of it with a president who can replace at least 2 of the 4 above.

Man up everyone!

Um, I hate to point out to you that Al Gore won the popular vote outright, and should have been our President. It took vote suppression and finally a corrupt Supreme Court to make George W. Bush president.

DADT, American auto industry, Sotomayor, Kagen.

Yeah, right, Romney’d be so much better.

And just to expand on your point, it’s pretty clear that Gore would have won Florida’s electoral votes, but the Supreme Court was able to jump in where they had no jurisdiction and declare it over before the votes were legally counted. Apparently, to the republicans, rule of law means whatever they want it to mean. Do you really want these people to be in charge?

great post Mr Boggs. I really love the graphic.

And I’ll join the chorus of people who are disappointed with the pace of progress under Obama. I underestimated the blast of hate that we have been seeing since January 2009. I was expecting something like the irrational and crazy anti-Americanism we saw from 1992-2000, but that is looking like a gentle spring breeze compared to the blasts of berzerker rage we’ve been seeing since 2008. Really, Obama is a Clintonite moderate Democrat, but the only real reason I can see for ratcheting up the hate and the crazy so much is … well, he’s Black, isn’t he?

I really think a lot of the timidness of the Obama administration has been a reaction to the violent wave of rage directed toward him personally. He’s been trying to make friends with the people who want him dead. It’s not really going to be possible.

Thank you, tbogg. I thought all of FDL had long since gone nuts, but I see I was wrong. You have joined my pantheon of reason. :)

well said, Mr TBogg.

The republican power boys fake out the Tea Baggers but still give them their social legislation while continuing to steal from them economically.

Not exactly, lawguy. They promise and plank on that “social legislation,” but it never happens. Those are their shadows on the cave wall. If Roe v. Wade was ever really upset, for example, they would suffer a loss in their rhetorical bleating.

It seems to me like a lot of the people who accuse Obama of not doing anything or capitulating to Republicans are really overestimating the amount of power the president has over legislation. He has to depend on congress to get anything done, and guess what? The House has a 25-seat Republican majority, and the Senate is functionally useless without 60 senators in agreement. The most Obama can do is donate political capital and the like to those who support him. The problem is, Republicans and Conservative Dems get points from their constituents for not supporting him, for being clearly in opposition to him. Obama doesn’t have anything to offer to those people, and they’re the ones who decide the votes.

What do you expect the man to do? Honestly? Just abolish congress and declare that his word is law?

They continue to cut back on abotrion rights every chance they get, and the democrats go along (see HCR). They have their “gun rights” completely back where they were before Clinton.

Pretending that the social conservatives do not get what they want is a way that we liberals make ourselves feel better about not getting what we want from our party leaders. “See the republicans do the same thing, they are also dupes, we aren’t so dumb after all.”

Have to say, I’m a bit surprised – and depressed – that my nihilistic take on things upthread didn’t provoke any response, which I take as an indication that there are lots of folks who are just as depressed about the outlook as I am. In re-reading it I see that I wasn’t completely clear in that I’m not in the “fuck them all – the Dems are just as bad camp” so much as I’m in the “it’s hopeless” camp. Obama has disappointed me in a lot of ways – just as ANY president would – but I’m not blind to the fact that he can only do as much as the crazy and the craven will allow. I see a lot of folks insisting that he could do much better, but I don’t see how, with a Senate that filibusters every single bill and takes hostages at every opportunity. I suppose some of these people think that he should put on a show of trying to do more, but for what purpose? If we barely got the health insurance reform we got, we weren’t going to get single-payer no matter how many speeches he made or if he threatened to hold his breath until he turned blue or whatever. What saddens me most of all is to see people with whom I am in broad agreement on most things falling into the GOP trap and blaming the president for not doing things that an anti-democratic, treasonous minority block him from doing – too often with an assist from members of the president’s own party. I’m not sure what they expect the man to do about it, other than try to get more good people elected next time around. But blaming him for not being able to do things the current Congress won’t allow to be done seems at best counter-productive.

That having been said, I stick by my previous comment – I do believe it’s all over for this country, and I’m actively looking into leaving. I’ve gotten to the point where I feel that, by staying and paying my taxes, I’m providing the financing to turn myself into a serf, along with my fellow citizens – in service of a country that hates me. It doesn’t make sense to continue doing it.

Well, sure. The fact that this whole conversation is happening illustrates your point – “both sides,” as it were, are playing this game.

But I would submit that if the GOP rainmakers really wanted that stuff to go down, then they would not have been as spooked by the Tea Party “movement” as they clearly are. They’re in regroup mode now, trying to mitigate the “firin’ up” of the “base.”

The sane (albeit, perhaps, sociopathic) power mongers realize that overreach is death. Clearly there are nuts out there, but I think that it’s recognized that they are hurting the party.

This brings me ’round to the topic of this thread – I think that “cutting off the nose to spite the face” is an exaggeration here, TBogg. It’s more like “let ‘em have their overreach.” I’m not necessarily advocating that, but a splash of cold water on the face is a splash of cold water on the face.

I registered just so I could thank you for posting this, Tbogg. Perspective is a rare commodity among the left these days.

I generally don’t comment this much, but first Obama could have done a lot more. He could have been a real leader he chose not to. What he did fight for were bailouts for Wall Street and to make sure that the health care industry got everything they wanted in his HCR.

But more importantly, for all those who want to waste their time working for and voting for Obama: feel free. Then in four years if he is elected, you can explain why he couldn’t do anything but raise the retirement age, cut benefits, fight more wars, and destroy a few more freedoms. It is inevitable don’t you see.

If it’s inevitable, then your best bet is to do what I’m doing: look into another place to go live. Because your choices are going to be Obama + Republican roadblocks to fixing anything, or whatever nut the Republicans nominate + full rein to put everything in the shitter at full speed. And flushing, also, too. In the grand scheme of things, preventing the latter is, in my mind anyway, worth the simple act of voting for the alternative – even though I don’t plan on sticking around longer than I have to. As in all else, your mileage may vary.

Well, nihilism is rarely a crowd-pleaser.

I don’t know. I’m 20 years old, in my second year of college. Aside from that putting practical restrictions on my ability to leave, I also don’t like the idea of leaving, because for me it’s a way of saying “I surrender. The bad guys win.” And it’s not like an American under total wingnut control would politely leave the rest of the world alone, either. They want to control everything, not just a chunk of land between Canada and Mexico. Mostly, there are still lots of things I love about America, and I want to (I’m getting real corny here) try to live in the country that I was promised. But maybe I’m just a fool.

For a long, long time in the 19th and 20th centuries, things were shittier than they are now for the poor, relatively and absolutely speaking. Then we got Roosevelt and the New Deal and a good 50 years or so or relative prosperity and progress. Maybe that’s just a blip on the radar of history, or maybe we’re due for another one.

Well, nihilism is rarely a crowd-pleaser.

LOL. Nihilism is a terrible strategy but, as a tactic…?

Good for you. Historical perspective is very important. Growing up in the 1960s, as I did, it did seem that the arc was bending toward justice; in the 1920s and 30s, not so much. There were good reasons for this, and I think that the collapse of US imperial pretensions, which is well under way, is behind the present lashing out on the part of the rich (most of them) and their dupes. But that does not mean that the US overall inevitably becomes actually poorer, even if we become relatively poorer (i.e. less privileged) as others become more affluent &/or less poor. The transition is very brutal, but it’s not permanent. And we have work to do to shorten it. Aiming (metaphorical!) gun at own foot = wrong target.

Yes, in four more years people might well have to “explain why he couldn’t do anything but raise the retirement age, cut benefits, fight more wars, and destroy a few more freedoms”.

But that would be versus wondering what to do once Social Security had been turned into a right to invest yourself into penury, right to work is the standard across the land, unions effectively no longer exist so people are grateful for a job of some kind in the military even with an elevated risk of dying in a foreign war and freedom? That’s just another word for nothing left to lose, as they say.

I do appreciate people’s frustrations and hey, I’m just an onlooker in all this, but a Repub president is far worse than Obama. The thing to do is get like the Republicans and start putting people into government service, the media and corporations at a young age and low level. Nurture them until they achieve levels of real power.

Well, I was in the “stay and fight the bastards” camp for 8 long years. My hope was that winning back political power would allow us to start to right our direction. My mistake was in believing that anything of the sort can be achieved through political means, when it’s not political leadership (or lack thereof) that’s put us in the position we’re now in (in which we lose even when we win, because we share the country with a bunch of squalling infants) – it’s that we’ve reached a critical mass of stupid and crazy in the populace, and no amount of political “fighting” or talking or anything else can dial it down…and without dialing it down nothing is really going to get any better.

excellent post.
thank you.

Yes, my demonic overlord, sigh, we are all Ellen Jamesians now. Also, I believe Mittens is the under toad, therefore I will not venture further than knee deep into the Atlantic until the 2012 elections are certified and the Usurper has gained another four years of absolute authority over all laws and regulations.

TBogg,

Too easy. I think it is important for us to openly defy the Obama Machine, and at least consider a Green or other alternative. We don’t yet know who is the Republican nominee. While we know Gore would have been better than Bush Jr in hardening our airports to have avoided 9/11, we can be more certain Gore (with his similar neo-con advisers) would have been more emboldened–had 9/11 not occurred–to attack Iraq. And who knows whether he would have allowed rich people skewed tax cuts the way Obama allowed it to happen? Yes, we’d have a marginally better Supreme Court, but again, is that what we’re left doing as our nation continues its economic decline?

Rather than snark against those who know as well as you do that Obama has been a deep disappointment, and simply a weakling in the Jimmy Carter mode, we really ought to be scaring the heck out of Obama and his White House advisers who already have no respect for us and really do hate us. What those folks respect is power and why not rise up at least vocally and say we are not supporting you in 2012…

Not only have significant primary challenges of an incumbent president by his own party never worked, but the opposing candidate has always ended up winning-1968, 1976, 1980, and 1992. I’d happily support an attempt to challenge Democratic leadership from the left, if I thought that doing so wouldn’t strengthen the Republicans.

Given the GOP’s undiluted and barely restrained psychopathy, it’s impossible not to wholeheartedly support Democrats, politically. Which is sad because Obama going along with tax breaks for the rich has enabled Republicans to kill not just social programs in many states, but police, fire and medical services. I understand why he went along with it at the time, but this is one area where he should have demonstrated leadership and vision for the good of the majority. Instead he opted to satisfy America’s minority of assholes who already own 80% of the wealth and the country is now even further fucked financially. Add to that a near total lack of financial regulation and America is poised to repeat the corruption that caused it’s economic downfall.

The future is going to depend on liberal-minded citizens taking action through mass protests and pressure tactics, and not relying on political parties to represent their interests or do the right thing. Because clearly that ain’t happening.

Btw, happy Dad’s Day, TBogg. I hope your furboys are being good little rascals today. And by that I mean not getting up to shenanigans that require trips to the vet.

We know the L&T Casey, not a basset hound, is well-mannered. :)

You say that as if there is all that much difference between the parties in terms of the decline of our nation…Why give him an open road without some dissenting fight? To say something has never worked is something our Founders would have laughed at, since they were told the same thing. At some point, it ought to work, and this is as good a time as any…

At long last, what is left for Obama to do to our nation other than to complete the destruction of Social Security and Medicare, the last of the safety nets? We know he is itching to privatize Social Security and Medicare in some “Grand Bargain.” And his latest anti-civil liberties actions and anti-constitutional actions with respect to Libya are just manifestations of GW Bush. He is essentially firing Robert Gates for not getting with the executive aggrandizement program on Libya. That is pretty pathetic.

Everything that Spaghetti Lee said … and one more thing. Why is it that so many people think they can just hate on Jimmy Carter as if he was, as it was put in the Simpsons, History’s Greatest Monster! Although he had poor luck in the economic cycle, and the Iranian hostage rescue mission failed due to no fault of his own, I remember him as a pretty damn good president. He had many good achievements, and was a very smart and virtuous guy. Certainly, it’s hard not to look upon his term as a golden age for America, which immediately preceded the blight and decay that began under the senile hateful fool that barely beat him.

We know he is itching to privatize Social Security and Medicare in some “Grand Bargain.”

We know this, how, exactly? I’m not familiar with the Obama-backed legislation that’s been introduced – or even spoken of – to do these things.

He gets lots of props for his post-presidency with Habitat for Humanity – but something most people don’t know about is that he’s been the primary force in wiping out the guinea worm, which once caused untold suffering throughout Asia and Africa and is now relegated to a few pockets of Sudan and sub-Saharan Africa. If you’re not familiar with guinea worm disease, go look it up…it’s horrifying.

History’s greatest monster, indeed.

And even during his presidency, his record tends to be misrepresented by the Reagan worshipers who tend to inhabit the press. Yes, interest rates were high, but unemployment was low. Reagan was able to lower interest rates, at the expense of throwing millions of people out of work. I don’t remember structural unemployment being an issue before the Reagan administration. Carter gets a lot of flack for having been a bloodless technocrat who got things done by careful planning, but really isn’t that a lot better than someone who appeals to people’s emotions in order to swindle them?

If Carter had been able to win a second term, we would have achieved energy independence decades ago. And we wouldn’t have the trillions of dollars of debt run up under the Reagan, Bush and Bush administrations.

JennOfArk,

Please read more carefully what’s going on. Start here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/16/opinion/16krugman.html

And now read this little thing from the Daily Beast:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2009/01/16/obama-calls-for-entitlement-reform.html

Obama thinks Soc Sec is in crisis. He thinks Medicare needs deep reforms. Why? Because that is always part of the chat at cocktail parties of the elite who gather in the Village known as the Beltway. This is the basis for the Grand Bargain he seeks.

And what made Obama really suspect to me was that after saying we need to shore up Soc Sec, he supported and pushed for a cut in the payroll tax that funds Soc Sec and Medicare. How ridiculous is that? All to protect against further deficits caused by continuing the income tax cuts for the top taxpayers?

The cynicism that says, We should not even challenge Obama, is really a recipe for disaster. The difference between the earlier decades up through 2000 is that we are now as a nation deep into economic decline, and we are running out of time to reverse that trend. To allow our choices to remain competent bankers like Obama and incompetent bankers like most Republican Party candidates for president is to accept that decline.

MarkinAusitn,

Carter was weak as president if one has any sympathy for the New Deal. That was my point.

Carter increased military spending in each of the last three years of his office and his proposed military build up if he had won in 1980 was similar to Reagan’s. Carter pushed for and got a reduction in the capital gains tax (fat lotta good it did him politically), and he personally told Congress he would veto the labor law reform that was being geared up for his signature by the lamented Harrison Williams (D-NJ). Carter also engaged in nation destruction in Zaire and Angola in 1977-1978 despite a great speech in 1977 against an inordinate fear of Communism undermining our best ideals.

Carter was unfairly blamed for inflation that came from the spike in oil prices, yes. And he was blamed for not bombing Iran to stop the mullahs from overthrowing the Shah, as if even Reagan could have gotten away with that for long…But let’s not idealize him based upon his post-president performance, which has been largely outstanding.

As I understand the post, the nuns were going to be killed anyway. At least they didn’t get raped first. Middle Class, how would you like your demise…..raped first or not?

I don’t agree with your interpretation. Don’t really know what more I can say about it.

Dear Mitchell:

Honest. We know. We do not require your education, nor your careful explanation as to why we are all fools.

Thanks very much.

Love.
GWPDA

Come on, JennOfArk. That’s the best you can do? What kind of bullshit is “I don’t agree with your interpretation”? I get that from people who say they are “conservative” who don’t know facts, but only their feelings they get from corporate media. Pathetic.

And one more thing to say to MarkinAustin: Carter appointed Volker as head of the Federal Reserve knowing Volker was a hard deficit hawk and hard money guy. So if Carter was re-elected in 1980, we would still have increased defense spending a la Reagan and a deep recession due to contracting the money supply and economy overall.

Come on, people. This is TBogg’s place, where we are supposed to act tough and snarky. But suddenly, TBogg says, “Oh no, don’t trash Obama! Republicans might win…” as if Republicans are not winning every single day already. I know it can get worse. What bothers me at this point is that there is so little left to get worse in terms of our safety net compared to 1980 or even 2000. Idiocracy is nearly here…:-(

I blame congress and the cowardly democrats in the Senate for a lot of the problems. These dysfunctional narcissists are one of the biggest problems Obama and the nation face.

Sorry, I hocked my ‘Free Mumia’ T-shirt.*

*Chumlee gave me a nickle for it. Sucker.

Oh, my bad. I’m of the school where, if someone makes a statement 2 or 4 years ago, for campaign rhetoric, and then both a)never brings it up again and b)doesn’t do anything else to bring it about, I don’t consider it to be an imminent fait accompli.

And here you are, chastising me for not running around shrieking about the sky falling as the result of comments made in 2007 and early 2009.

I’ll have the “Gentleman’s Latte” with “Full Release,” please.

So – how’re Fenway and Wembelly doing?

So basically, you guys, “support the centrist or go to fuck”. Principles are for NADER LOVING LOSERZ hurr durr.

Thanks, TBogg. Just. Thanks.

Progressives need to make an impact in local politics before they whine about the President of the US not listening to them enough. Why should the president kowtow to a bloc that isn’t competent enough to elect more than a handful of members of congress and not even a single big city mayor … that I can think of. I count myself as a progressive, but I’m also cognizant of the fact that a mealy centrist is about the best we can ask for at the national level. And it could be a lot worse. A WHOLE LOT worse.

My personal experience during the inflationary late 70s, early 80s, was that my not-too-far-ahead-of-Minimum wage kept up pretty well with prices owing to raises and job changes. And I discovered by accident that if you kept your IRA in a mostly short-term treasury bill fund the yield would keep the value of the IRA up quite well. It topped out at 15% in my case.

i agree about congress, but not about obama. i haven’t forgotten the arms he had to twist to get the faa passed, the bankster bailout passed, etc.

Life under Romney

been there. done that.

and so, one might note, has the blogger tbogg quoted.

Ya, see me @23. Get active!

Ha Ha, also, too….

Yep, you don’t even need to run for school board or anything. Volunteer at a soup kitchen, help clean up the watershed where you live, write a letter to the editor!

Politics is all local, baby.

I find it so amusing that Obama gets dumped on from both the left and right. Jesus, he could walk on water and they’d complain he didn’t turn it into wine.

Word. There were homeless people in America before Reagan, but not like now. I remember the shock of reading about how homeless shelters weren’t prepared for the influx of children and families in addition to what my parents’ generation called “bums.” I’ve also been disappointed in Obama but the alternatives are far, far worse … and unlike JennofArk, I’m too old to emigrate; other countries don’t want people like me, in their sixties and with declining health. Besides, this is my country and I’m not just giving it up without even a whimper to a bunch of bigoted yahoos.

To me, and this is a sad thing to say, the direction Obama is taking with a horse that represents America, is letting the horse heal on its own from a broken ankle, while the GOP challenger is waiting anxiously with a gun to put the entire horse down.

Just wish Obama would do more.

Yes! And visit your Rep’s office. Those visits do make a difference.

I’m fortunate to live in the district I do, but, I view every day as “educate your redneck/conservative friend day”.

Heck, I’ve got a bunch of them being “fair and balanced”! I’ll listen to El Rushbo if they listen to Thom Hartmann and their minds are really being opened….

One day, one day, it may be butterbeforeguns around here!

MarkinAustin,

Making bad assumptions about me after your bad history isn’t helping you one bit. Hiding behind TBogg’s dress, with the Mumia joke, makes you a coward, too.

Sorry, Mumia bashing won’t save you here. We all know about that already. All I’m saying is that giving up and saying you’re voting for Obama next year is cynicism on rye with weakness as the mayo. I’d rather the bastards in DC run scared.

Sticks and stones, dude. Stop trolling and start working to make America a better place. That’s my advice to you.

And ‘bad history’? Really? I have no goddamn idea what you’re talking about. I’ve responded to you … maybe twice … and been a little snarky and dismissive, but I haven’t been mean to you, and you’ve responded with a hail of insults and baiting. Project much?

The idea that you should vote for someone cause you’re afraid of what will happen if the other guy wins is ridiculous. It’s the same as becoming a Christian because you’re afraid you’ll go to Hell if you don’t.

But I guess George W. Bush said almost the exact same shit about a woman’s right to choose and he had huge majorities in both chambers and now abortion is illegal. Oh wait… it’s not.

Also, for the last time: RALPH NADER DIDN’T COST AL GORE THE ELECTION. The Supreme Court cost Al Gore the election.

Wow, that’s an impressive demonstration of how to take a complex situation and view it from a purely binary perspective. Neoconservatives would be proud of the intellectual simplification. No need for either/or – Ralph Nader AND the Supreme Court (AND the “butterfly ballot” AND shitty lawyers) cost Al Gore the election.

Methinks they protest too much over their Nader votes. They don’t deny all of the other times staying at home or voting for a unicorn have saddled us with reactionaries. Nor do they admit that they didn’t just vote, rather they enabled an entire campaign, the chief effect of which was to dilute Gore support in all 50 states over a year-long period. Ironically, they are denying that they played any part in bringing us George Bush, but are openly advocating election of one of the Republican neanderthals this time as another huge dose of chemotherapy for the electorate. I suspect that ten years from now they will be denying any role in the defeat of Barack Obama.

Exactly, but as today everyone realizes that Gore in 2000 would have been so much better than Bush (though Mitchell @50 has the most idiotic attempt to claim that Gore would have invaded Iraq after 9/11 – completely ignoring that Gore was one of the few consistent anti-Iraq democrats), this same morons who once claimed that Bush and Gore were identical are now spouting that in 2012 Obama and Romney would govern the same. Or even better, that Romney, had he been elected in 2008, would have passed a more liberal healthcare plan than Obama did.

I’m not sure whether they’ll be denying their role in defeating Obama or swearing that he would have nuked Damascus, nominated ultra-conservative SC justices, and turned Medicare into a non-functional voucher system just like Romney did. In any case, they’ll be just as wrong as they were about Nader.