I can only promise this: If there are investigations and prosecutions I will vote for Obama in 2012

[ThomWV]

I mean that's really it. I know he will do his best on the other issues that face the country and I may see much of what I want and will see much I don't want, but those things don't bother me so much because I know good men and women are working hard for what's best and the outcome will be better than we have now. The prosecutions are another thing. This is the fundamental basis of Government; the rule of law -or not - will decide my vote on his Presidency. Its as simple as that.

[NightWatcher]

1. let's announce a quid pro quo. IF he investigates/prosecutes we'll donate, volunteer, and vote

I'd sign up for that.

[ThomWV]

4. Its really a matter of if he does do what's right I'll support him in every way I can.

Investigation and prosecution is the minimum I expect from him, and if he can't deliver on that then I'll have to support someone else. Its not at all difficult really, enforcing the rule of law is my lowest hurdle in the Presidential race. If they won't do that what good are they?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

2. If he doesn't pick Hillary for his VP, I'll never vote for Obama.

[Lyric]

19. You PUMA types are all the same.

:eyes:

[datasuspect]

3. i had hoped there would be a restoration of the rule of law and at least the pretense of respect for

the will of the people.

i'll still give him time for extra-dimensional chess moves, but yeah, if heads don't roll for the rogue state condition we suffered under bush, we need to take it to the streets. so fine, give the fellow four years, i have time.

[YOY]

5. Ask yourself this question: If the shoe was on the other foot would the Rs hesitate to prosecute?

In my mind...hell no.

[Mythsaje]

8. They'll prosecute for stains... so NO. n/t

[DCKit]

34. It would be genocide against all (D)s.

Now I know how they get it up when the viagra runs out.

[Mythsaje]

6. Working hard for what's best? Really?

Best for whom? The insurance industry? Banks? Dear Gawd, I HOPE the outcome will be better than we have now, but I'm not betting on it.

[dgibby]

7. That pretty much sums how I feel, too. Thanks!

[Soylent Brice]

9. hypothetical situation:

he doesn't investigate shit, but picks kucinich as his next running mate.

would you vote for him then?

[county worker]

10. Well, we are starting early with the "I won't vote for Obama" threads.

I thought at least we would wait and see how is first term effects the country as a whole. Well I guess you can take the day off from voting because the Justice Dept is responsible for investigating law breaking not the President.

[ThomWV]

11. Go ahead if that's what you want to do

I am not concerned that he will abandon the populists issues and I'm not concerned that he will not get all he or I want in every one of those areas. He can not win or lose my vote on those matters because men and women of good will are working on them. I am satisfied.

The rule of law is another point. I have not seen him do much meaningful in this area (I require investigation and eventual prosecution as a minimum) and this is the one on which I base my vote. It is why I preferred him in the first place (remember the Constitutional Scholar part of his resume?) and from his first to his last day in office it will be what I judge his Presidency by. If that doesn't satisfy your standards then we simply have different standards and you can decided for yourself which is the higher of the two.

[county worker]

12. Like I said, it isn't up to Obama to investigate or prosecute. That is what we have a justice dept

for. And the House and Senate can investigate and bring charges.

I want Obama to be working on issues that we need like health care, housing, jobs, the economy, education, defense, peace in Iraq and Afghanistan.


You need to put the responsibility where it really belongs. Remember Watergate and Nixon's justice dept. We need a strong justice department like Nixon's. Obama can fire them all if he wants but he would never get reelected.

[tom_paine]

13. Then you won't vote for Obama in 2012.

There might be investigations, but there will be no prosecutions.

That much is already clear, like there will be no single-payer health care.

I'm almost ready to prophesy that health care "reform" will basically be little more than forcing all of us to buy the Health Care Deniers product, with the threat (as with auto insurance) of terrible fines if we resist.

Almost ready.

In either case, Thom, what you have done with this post is pretty much unequivocally state that you won't be voting for Obama in 2012, because it is 99.9999% certain there will be NO PROSECUTIONS.

Just like Clinton did for his Bushie Pals is 1993.

I'm not happy about this reality, but it IS reality.

[able1]

14. Well said, tom_paine. EOM

[progressoid]

16. Well, there might be a couple prosecutions but it won't be anyone of consequence.

Those at the top have nothing to worry about.

[derby378]

22. I thought our political reality was whatever we made of it

That means it's time for the people to get off their asses and demand prosecutions. And if Obama ignores the cries for justice, he does so at the peril of losing the 2012 primary. That's reality.

[ForrestGump]

62. You've been reading that Declaration of Independence thingy again, haven't you?

That is sooooooo 1776, dude.

We've moved on since then.







And we've got Tivo!

[TheMachineWins]

15. There won't be much progress without prosecutions anyway

The same criminals will just create new scams to work around whatever new rules the Obama admin. comes up with. The banks are still getting all the money, the war criminals will go free, people will keep dying and going broke trying to pay health bills and propaganda and the fear-based "Homeland" security will keep stripping all of us of every single freedom ever known.

[jtrockville]

17. Honestly, i'll probably vote for him either way

It'll just be a matter of whether I have to cast my vote in disgust or not.

But then again, I'll be a really easy target for a 3rd party candidate if my own party can't follow the law.

[Vinca]

18. OMG - has Sarah Palin found a potential backer?

:rofl:

[ThomWV]

31. No, it will just like when I see Rockefeller's name on the ballot - I move on

Its called an undervote but actually my main focus would be on supporting someone else in the Primary process.

[dionysus]

20. ROFL...starting already with the "I won't vote for obama" scenarios, eh?

i'm sure you'll continue to find reasons not to do so.

[slay]

21. That's a big IF

and even if there are investigations and prosecutions - the fact remains he is and always will be a man of the corporations, not the people. I will always vote Kucinich in the primaries if he is running, but I'll go ahead and side with you on this. Realisticly, I know we can't get everything we want from Obama - and it seems right now we are getting very little indeed - but if they follow through with investigating and prosecuting torture, he'll most likely have my vote as well. Otherwise a third party candidate may end up being a real contender in 2012.

[cali]

33. bwahaha.

sanctimonious shit clogs the arteries of DU, day in and day out.

:rofl:

and no, sorry, but a third party candidate will not be a real contender in 2012.

[dionysus]

36. well.... that's one way to put it!

:spray:

[slay]

44. Why don't you go

well, i'm sure you can fill in the rest. *you have been added to slay's ignore list*

[JDPriestly]

50. Don't be so certain, Cali. Who would ever have thought

that Schwarzenegger would be elected and then re-elected. Never say never.

For that matter, who would have thought in 2000 that Obama would be elected in 2008? He gave a good speech at a Democratic Convention, but that is really all anyone knew about him.

I still think he does not have the judgment a more experienced individual would have. The CIA, the military and Wall Street are walking all over him. He just does not have the political stature to buck them. And they know it. So, we are kind of stuck in an impasse with Obama pretty helpless to actually change even the most obvious things -- like the policy on torture. Sure, he can declare that during his administration there will be no torture. But he doesn't seem to have the political courage or strength to enforce the laws prohibiting torture. His inaction tells us that he does not have the political clout to bring torturers to justice.

Truman was not an extremely powerful politician. He barely was elected. But he had more political courage than Obama has shown thus far. It's very sad.

So, if a third party candidate -- not Jesse Ventura but someone like him -- comes forward and captures the imagination of Americans who are sick of the stalemate between the Republicans and Democrats, that candidate could be a serious contender -- serious enough to affect the outcome of the election in an unexpected way -- if not get elected.

[Senator]

56. I dunno ... why not Jesse Ventura?

It may be a bit reflexive to dismiss him out of hand and there really is no "someone like him," since Schwarzenegger is precluded.

The euphemedia's ability to demonize has been greatly diminished. And should the economic doldrums continue -- along with Obama's "bi-partisanized" servicing of the aristocracy -- the electorate could well be in an "anything but business us usual" mood in 2012.

Ventura's high profile and thumbnail bio could make him a formidable challenger and vessel for discontent.

---

[JDPriestly]

63. "bi-partisanized" servicing of the aristocracy

I like that turn of phrase.

[bvar22]

23. I will promise this:

If the Democratic Party "Health Care Reform Package" does NOT contain a viable, well funded Public Option (like Medi Care), I WILL no longer be a Democrat.
I have voted Straight Party Line since 1968, but this is MY line in the sand.

I will still support any Democrat who is currently co-sponsoring HR 676, but I will be looking for a Party that supports Working Americans and NOT the Mega Corporations.


"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans. I want us to compete for that great mass of voters that want a party that will stand up for working Americans, family farmers, and people who haven't felt the benefits of the economic upturn."---Paul Wellstone

[mike_c]

27. me too....

I've already left the democratic party, although I support democratic candidates enthusiastically whenever I can. In this case, I'm almost ready to begin saying "I told you so." I voted Green in 2008 because it was pretty obvious Obama was not going to represent progressive political interests. Obama ALREADY had to work for my vote in 2012, and he's not done a good job of it so far.

[dionysus]

28. didn't vote for obama, that explains it.

and working against him since day 1 of his presidency, why am i not surprised?
:eyes:

[Alexander]

29. What do you mean you "left"? You obviously were never a Democrat.

You're just looking for excuses not to support Democrats.

Perhaps you've found the wrong forum?

[mike_c]

38. LOL-- I was a solid dem for 30 voting years...

...since my first election, voting for Jimmy Carter. No more. The democratic party left me-- today's dems are mostly to the political right of NIXON, for Pete's sake. I'm a lifelong liberal. I've got little use for do nothing conservatives and their lackeys, no matter what letter they put after their name. I'd LOVE to be a democrat again-- but I won't until the democratic party starts to stand up for liberal ideals.

And I've been a contributor on this forum for eight years, probably since about the same time you joined. You want an echo chamber? DU is not the place to look for it. You should know that by now.

[Alexander]

39. Yet you're willing to allow a President Romney or Palin.

The sad truth is that we have a two-party system. Not supporting the Democrats means that fundie nutcases like Romney and Palin are more likely to get into office.

You want that? Then go right ahead and not vote if that's what makes you feel better and superior to the rest of us.

"The democratic party left me-- today's dems are mostly to the political right of NIXON, for Pete's sake. I'm a lifelong liberal. I've got little use for do nothing conservatives and their lackeys, no matter what letter they put after their name. I'd LOVE to be a democrat again-- but I won't until the democratic party starts to stand up for liberal ideals."

Maybe you should try pressuring Democrats to support liberal goals instead of whining and taking your ball home? How much activism have you ever engaged in, besides pouting on a message board? Sure, maybe you voted for Carter, but did you do much else besides that?

"You want an echo chamber? DU is not the place to look for it. You should know that by now."

I also know by now that DU is not a bastion of rational thought as far as self-described liberals are concerned, present company included.

[mike_c]

42. that's the biggest straw man of them all....

When I CAST A VOTE for a republican candidate-- something I have never done in my life-- you can castigate me for supporting, even tacitly, a republican.

My vote is for the person I vote for, not for whomever you interpret that ballot to "mean" I support. Palin? Romney? Give me a break. If you want me to vote for a democrat, then encourage the democratic party to represent my interests. I do that by voting for the candidate that best represents them.

[Alexander]

48. Only it happens to be true.

Out of 97 thousand Nader voters in Florida in 2000, you can't tell me with a straight face that at least 539 of them would have preferred Gore over Bush - enough to change the last 8 years of our history.

"When I CAST A VOTE for a republican candidate-- something I have never done in my life-- you can castigate me for supporting, even tacitly, a republican."

When you sit on your ass and refuse to vote, contact your representatives, circulate petitions, and generally get involved in your civic duties, you can expect the worst possible kind of leader, because that's exactly what you'll get.

You have yet to answer my question regarding your civic involvement. Did you just show up and vote every four years? Or did you do more?

Based on your silence on the matter, it seems you think that all that is needed is a vote - in which case your ranting loses all credibility.

"If you want me to vote for a democrat, then encourage the democratic party to represent my interests."

You could be doing that yourself, you know. Ever start petitions? Call your elected officials? Show up at campaign events or local meetings? Do anything meaningful to change the direction of the party so it is more to your liking?

Civic involvement is a two-way street. If you don't do anything besides voting, how on earth do you expect elected officials to cater to your interests? Mind-reading? Give me a break.

[bvar22]

40. Yeah.

I used to mercilessly ridicule Middle Class Republicans for voting AGAINST their own economic interests.
I couldn't understand how they could be so stupid.
I'm beginning to understand now that I'm seeing so many "Democrats" lining up to do the same thing.
Low Information Voters ? :shrug:

Fact is, if more Democrats held their elected representatives accountable, we wouldn't be in this mess.

[mike_c]

43. exactly so....

:hi:

[waiting for hope]

45. +1

[leftstreet]

55. This is issue #1 for millions of Americans

If the Democrats fuck this up...

[madokie]

24. I'll not be hinging my vote on any such thing

I do believe there will be investigations and prosecutions so maybe thats why I can't be too worked up just yet. :-)

[mdmc]

25. I only hoped for Obama's re-election. I always hoped he would

be a bit better then the GOP alternative. I am sure 2012 will be the same. Obama will be better then the GOP. I hope the GOP runs Jessie the Body. He is the only shot they have in 2012. They need a face change..

[closeupready]

26. That may be the one thing that could happen which would change my opinion of Obama for the better

As of right now, based upon what he's done so far, I can't commit to supporting another run in 2012.

[cali]

30. self-aggrandizing and pretentious post.

[konnichi wa]

32. Well, I'm not about to guess what I might do in 3 years.

Seems a little counterproductive to set benchmarks before we even know what issues will be on the burner in 2011/12.

[rockymountaindem]

35. If you thought there were going to be prosecutions in the first place

you were being delusional. It's not going to happen because that's not the way we do things in this country. Maybe you think we should, but we just don't. Obama is not going to break that tradition.

[cali]

37. it's not the way it's been done in practically any country post-nuremberg

the fact is that it's extremely rare for the administration immediately succeeding an admin that tortured and murdered, to investigate or prosecute.

[Fumesucker]

58. Meh, *most* countries don't hold themselves out as "the shining city on the hilll"..

And frankly I don't give the slightest fuck what other countries may or may not do.

To paraphrase Shep Smith for God's sake, America does not fucking torture!

[truedelphi]

41. For me the issues are the economy and also Universal Single Payer

But I think you are right. How much more important can it be to demand that our government not torture people?

That we not secretly rendition our prisoneers to some other nation where they are then tortured?

I think I am going to peg this to the other two. Obama either gets the point of why most of us voted for him, or it will be third party time when I go to place my ballot.

[BzaDem]

47. You won't vote for Obama if he doesn't institute something he campaigned against?

Obama not only made it clear that his health plan was not single payer -- he specifically campaigned against single-payer as too "extreme." Yet despite this, you voted for him, and now want to have us believe that if he doesn't institute single-payer you won't vote for his re-election?

:rofl:

[truedelphi]

51. It may well be a moot point - as I may not live long enough to see the next

Election if something is not done about health care.

[BzaDem]

46. You really don't have much of a choice.

The time to pick what kind of Democrat you want to be the nominee is the primary. We do actually have primaries even when an incumbant president is running. You are free to vote for Kucinich (or write him in if he doesn't run).

But assuming Obama becomes the Democratic nominee anyway, the only way that you would have much of a choice in the general election is if the Republican nominee would be more likely to prosecute than Obama. If that were the case, you could certainly influence the election in way you would want by voting for the Republican.

However, in the much more likely scenario where the Republican nominee is equally likely or less likely to prosecute, the vote becomes a vote on the other issues (and a no-vote would either be against your interests or it would mean you don't think there is any difference between Obama and the Republican nominee on all other issues).

If you think that somehow enough no-votes by (purported) Democrats would convince Democratic candidates in the future to run further left, that is simply wrong as a mater of numbers. In any two-party system, there are always more votes to be gained in the middle than from irrational people on the left who claim they are Democrats. People who deny this and still don't vote (or vote third party) are people whose beliefs are not based upon facts (similar to people who deny, say, evolution or global warming). It is never in a politican's interest to cater to these people.

[leftstreet]

54. Oh please

"We" don't pick our candidates, and you know it.

[shadowknows69]

49. If this country abandons the rule of law and lets war criminals walk

I'll probably just stop playing the fixed game altogether.

[Occam Bandage]

52. Funny. I'd assume you'd cast your vote on something that actually affects people.

You know, people outside the Beltway. I would like to see John Yoo in jail, but that's so far down my list of issues it's fair to approximate my position as, "whatever."

(If prosecuting former administrations is "the fundamental basis of government," then we have not ever had a government in America, since no former administration has ever been prosecuted once out of office)

[bridgit]

53. k...

[orleans]

57. i'm so disgusted and discouraged

if there are no prosecutions i probably won't vote ever again.

(and i've always voted)

[vssmith]

59. I can only promise this: If we get single payer health care I will vote for Obama in 2012

I will most likely vote for him anyway but I am just saying...

[Badgerman]

60. I would willingly sign such an agreement as well. Excellent! n/t

[ForrestGump]

61. My thought was that if the Democratic President was the real thing, the first thing that he or she

would do is repeal the 'Patriot' Act(s). I am beginning to think that this is not especially a priority held by those in charge.

I'd like to say that not doing so, and not belatedly introducing real universal health coverage, and not holding accountable those who so flagrantly trashed the Constitution in every way and broke as many international laws would deny Obama my vote in 2012. But, really, if he ended up being the Democratic contender I'd probably still vote for him. After all, I voted for him this time simply as a vote against the neocons, knowing that he was as bought-and-paid-for a corporatist as most of our other spurious choices and disillusioned that, in such a vast country, we're presented with so limited and dismal a pack of candidates. Am I really going to vote for a third party that has no chance, or not vote at all, just because there'll probably never be a political entity at that level that is going to really get me excited? Nope.

I knew Obama had an incredible morass to clean up, so I'm not expecting all good things to suddenly happen at once, but even if he hadn't inherited such an unholy mess I'd find it hard to be especially disillusioned by what many of us might characterize as his failings, if only because my expectations of his administration were low to begin with. It's nice to have a person in the Oval Office who is able to actually speak, and communicate clearly, aI'm sure he's a better person than many in his line of work, and I do like a couple of the things he's managed so far, but the bottom line remains a two-pronged problem that's at the heart of much of what is and will continue to be wrong with this country: (i) he and most others in the upper echelons in DC have more in common with each other (and their corporate masters, a term that once seemed kinda out there but is very obviously undeniable these days) than with We, The People (and thus it's only natural that they'd protect each other even when it seems to defy imagining) and (ii) we're not presented much of a real choice either in terms of the parties we vote for (increasingly bat-guano crazy far-right or the 'liberal' center-right are the only viable national-level alternatives) or the people offered as our candidates. The United Corporations of America, as a nation, needs something of a reboot.

[mmonk]

64. I understand.

Unconstitutional secret and broken government is hard to accept.