Let's give President Obama a super-majority in the Senate this November.

[Make7]

Legislative progress seems next to impossible with Republicans in the Senate having sufficient numbers to block, or water down through compromise, nearly everything. Should this situation continue (or get worse) as a result of the mid-term elections, the default excuse for the Obama Administration not accomplishing significant, strong, meaningful legislation will be Republican obstruction in the Senate.

Do you want to hold the President's feet to the fire to get some progressive policies enacted? Let's get out the vote this November and give him a Congress that can pass some bills without having to include unsavory portions, or exclude important passages, just to get a few Republican Senators' votes. If the Democratic caucus in the Senate had sixty-two or sixty-three votes, they would have the power to easily get things done - no excuses.

Or perhaps we should give in to our apathy and choose inaction as a more realistic path to accomplishing progressive goals. We could give the Republicans even more power to dilute important legislation by allowing them to increase their seats in the Senate this November. So let's stay at home and complain about the election results and consequences for the next two years until we have a chance to do nothing yet again.

Who's with me?
 

[mmonk]

1. A super majority of what?

We have given Democrats 3 straight wins in Congress.

[BzaDem]

3. The number of wins is not relevant.

What is relevant is the number of votes for a given piece of legislation. We need 60 to pass legislation. We could have had 12 wins in a row, but if we only had 59 votes we can pass very little. On the other hand, a single election that brings us to 62-63 means we could probably get most of the progressive agenda through without much trouble.

[mmonk]

11. Why didn't Bush need 60? What I mean with what.

The Senate Democrats should never let Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Connecticut) caucus with them. Lieberman was rejected by Connecticut Democrats at the polls. He was not elected as a Democrat. He often opposes the Democratic legislative agenda in the Senate. Lieberman supports and campaigns for Republicans. Letting Lieberman join the Democratic caucus raised unrealistic expectations without adding his vote behind the legislation Democrats were trying to pass! For Democrats, the fictional 60th Senate Democratic member illusion was a "lose, lose" proposition.

Of course, some elected Democratic senators remain unreliable votes. Neither Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Nebraska) nor Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Arkansas) are guaranteed yes votes on most progressive legislative issues. It is obvious that relying on a 60-member Super Majority to pass legislation is and always will be a mistake. A simple majority vote of Senate members can reduce the number of senators it takes to end a filibuster. I suggest moving to 55 instead of the current 60, as a reasonable compromise, unless Senate Republicans stop threatening to filibuster everything Democrats want to do in terms of passing laws and budgets. Ending filibusters entirely would be a better approach.

http://www.truth-out.org/no-more-senate-super-majority-illusion56325

Despite all the talk about Scott Brown bringing an end to the Democratic Senate supermajority, the truth is that Senate Democrats never had a filibuster-proof supermajority. They weren't even close.

A look at Senate voting habits shows that it takes only 54 Republican Senators to reach 60 votes for conservative legislation, while it takes 72 Democratic Senators to reach 60 votes for progressive legislation. While the last sentence sounds like snark, it isn't). Democratic Senators vote with Republicans significantly more often than Republican Senators vote with Democrats, making it much easier for Republicans to pass the kind of legislation they want.


According to Progressive Punch, looking only at "crucial votes," the average Democratic Senator has voted with the progressive position 82.4% of the time over the course of their entire career. By contrast, looking only at crucial votes, the average Republican Senator has voted with the progressive position 3.5% of the time throughout their entire career.


Voting habits like these mean that, in order to reach 60 progressive votes on crucial votes, Democrats actually need 72 Senators ((72 * 0.824) + (28 * 0.035) = 60.3 effective votes). By contrast, Republicans only need 54 Senators to break progressive filibusters of their agenda ((46 * 0.176) + (54 * 0.965) = 60.2 effective votes).


If there was no filibuster, and only 51 votes were required to pass legislation in the Senate, Democrats require 59 votes to hold the slimmest of majorities (50.1 effective votes), and even then they only hold the majority if a Democrat is Vice-President. So, even without the filibuster, passing progressive legislation such as card check, the public option, and cramdown would have been fraught

http://openleft.com/diary/17296/actual-senate-supermajority-requirements-72-democrats-54-republicans

[BzaDem]

12. It actually takes 60 votes to move most conservative legislation. The exception is reconciliation.

Bush did get his tax cuts through, because they only required reconciliation. (They will be expiring next year because of the limits of reconciliation.)

If we wanted to raise or lower taxes, or raise or lower spending, we could do it with 50 votes.

But if either party wants to do more than that, it takes 60 votes. SS privatization failed because it didn't have 60 votes. Immigration reform failed because it didn't have 60 votes. ANWR drilling failed because it didn't have 60 votes.

[mmonk]

13. My point is still with what. They reach their thresh holds because

our Senators are less likely to hold ground against conservative legislation. Therefore, less Republicans are required.

[BzaDem]

16. The statistical argument in that OpenLeft piece is very weak.

They are taking one statistic and making massive generalizations about it that do not follow from the statistic.

In addition, much of what you are talking about depends on the bills. Things like tax cuts tend to be popular. In addition, Medicare part D was a compromise that had a progressive goal (even if the implementation was not progressive). That is why some Democrats in the Senate voted for it.

The bills we are trying to pass, on the other hand, have little upside for Republicans to vote for. Republicans don't want to help the uninsured at all. Republicans don't want to increase regulation at all.. Republicans don't want to pass environmental legislation at all. There is no upside for them in any part of the bills we pass. That is why they are not voting for our bills.

This is not to say the bill we are trying to pass are somehow bad because of that. Far from it. I'm just trying to explain why they are less likely to jump onto our bills, as opposed to some Democrats jumping onto something like Medicare part D.

[treestar]

20. This post needs to be on auto text

To be repeated every time we see that same old statement that "the Republicans get what they want" and "they don't need 60 votes" as if that's just because they are so much tougher!

[dflprincess]

14. We would not have minority rule if, rather than just let some clod,

raise his hand and say he was going to filibuster, said clod would have to stand on the floor of the Senate talking until he fell over.

And, worse comes to worse, there is the nuclear option.

The last thing the Democrats want is a super-duper majority - they'd lose their excuse for not getting anything passed that might actually help the serfs.

[BzaDem]

17. The rules do not require anyone to stand on the floor talking until they fall over.

That is a fantasy. The rules simply require that one Senator ask for a quorum call every 15-30 minutes, requiring 50 Democrats to answer. That's right -- a "real filibuster" would require just one Republican, but 50 Democrats. (If fewer than 50 Democrats were present, the quorum call would fail and the Senate would adjourn.)

[dflprincess]

24. A quorum call is a different delaying tactic used to stop debate

The current rules just allowing a bunch of jerks to announce they intend to filibuster could be amended to go back to actual, painful filibusters (the record is held by Strom Thurmond who spoke for just over 24 hours trying to block the 1957 Civil Rights Act).

Rules may be changed with a 2/3 vote and, contrary to popular belief, that is not 2/3 of the entire senate but 2/3 of those on the floor and voting.

And, again, there is the nuclear option. This minority rule bullshit needs to stop and it would if the majority had the will to actually accomplish something.

[BzaDem]

58. Do you have any idea why Strom Thurmond filibustered?

You clearly don't. He filibustered because he wanted to look good back home. He did not NEED to actually stand up there -- he wanted to. In fact, it wasn't going to accomplish anything, because there were ALREADY enough votes to invoke cloture.

You are correct that rules may be changed with 2/3 present and voting. (In fact, most thresholds are present and voting. The 60 "duly-sworn" was a compromise made in 1975 when some threatened to use the nuclear option to change it to 3/5 present and voting.) However, present and voting doesn't really matter, because you need two days before a cloture motion ripens. That is plenty of time for all Senators to come back to the floor.

Of course there is the nuclear option. That doesn't mean that there are more than 10 or 20 Senators who would ever invoke it to remove the filibuster.

[Raineyb]

90. So you're saying the Democrats are too fucking lazy to bother to stick around

to enforce a filibuster?

That's not really helping your cause.

[BzaDem]

99. It's not a matter of being lazy. You would need 50 Democrats 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

They would not be able to go home and sleep or be with their families or anything.

On the other hand, you just need 1 Republican at a time. They would alternate in and out. So each Republican would have to be there for 1/40th of the day, while the Democrats would have to be there all the time.

[Hippo_Tron]

102. The majority leader has the option to enforce the quorum call though

Which means that all Senators are required to be present. Bob Packwood was literally dragged onto the floor by the Sgt. at Arms during a quorum call once.

The bottom line is that the filibuster could be done away with by brute force. The presiding officer, the Secretary of the Senate, the Sgt at Arms, are appointed by the Majority Leader. The Majority Leader could motion to vote on the bill and the presiding officer could order the clerk to call the roll. Short of a challenge in the courts, the minority party would be powerless to do anything about it. But the problem is that the rules as they are give individual Senators a lot of power and give the minority a lot of power. Democrats fear that they will be in the minority again one day and are afraid to do away with these powers.

[BzaDem]

103. Yes, that is true. Then again, the enrolled bill rule means that the courts won't even get involved

if a bill only gets 150 votes in the House, as long as the Speaker of the House signs the bill. (The enrolled bill rule is described in Marshall Field & Co. v. Clark, and it states that the courts will not look behind the enrollment of a bill once the Speaker and the President Pro Tempore signs the bill).

Does that mean that it is OK that laws be passed without a majority of the House?

It is interesting that you brought up the idea that the presiding officer of the Senate can simply say "the clerk will call the roll." That is exactly what happened in 1975 (despite Senators seeking recognition), when they were debating a motion to table a motion to reconsider a vote to table an appeal of a ruling that a point of order was not in order against a motion to table another point of order against a motion to bring to a vote the motion to call up the resolution that would institute a rules change.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,912966,00.html

This produced so much outrage that Senator after Senator (on the supporting side of the bill) went to the floor and just destroyed the presiding officer (Vice President Nelson Rockefeller). There was so much outrage that they went through even more procedural hoops to reconsider that vote, setting the precedent that the presiding officer can't just say "the clerk will call the roll" when Senators are seeking recognition. So while it may be technically possible, that precedent shows that there probably wouldn't be 10 votes to sustain a bill passed in that way.

[BzaDem]

18. .

[Ozymanithrax]

15. Senate Democrats were not the party of no...

They did not obstruct every bill as Democrats work from the theory that a functioning government is necessary to the nation. They did not require procedural votes on everything. They did not enforce party cohesion as a political ploy. Should Democrats have been the party of No under Bush?

There really is a difference between Democrats and Republicans.

In 1964, when Democrats passed the 1964 Civil Rights Act there were 63 Democrats and 37 Republicans. 21 Democrats and only 6 Republicans voting no in the Senate. At the time, the south was still mostly Conservative Democrats and there were many moderate and left of center Republicans. Times have changed. Electing a super-majority would require winning contests in states that elect conservatives.

[mmonk]

19. Should Democrats have been the party of no under Bush?

In my opinion, yes. Bush was different and radical and look what has happened. Is America today a concensus?

[Ozymanithrax]

48. America has never been a consensus. n/t

[bobburgster]

64. Those numbers are depressing!

"Democratic Senators vote with Republicans significantly more often than Republican Senators vote with Democrats, making it much easier for Republicans to pass the kind of legislation they want."

One big reason this is the case....there are no consequences for dems......reps, on the other hand will make a leper out of those who do not toe the line.

[moriah]

106. I'd love it if they'd mention other "not reliable votes"...

... instead of focusing on Blanche all the time, to be honest. Yes, she's running, yes, she's a Blue Dog, but Arkansas decided they wanted her to be the Democratic nominee for the Senate seat to stand against John Boozman's attempt to take over the seat. Maybe I'm oversensitive because this is my state and I don't want people hating on her, because I want her to win now that she is the nominee -- no matter what you think of her, she's a MUCH better choice than Boozman and I don't want people to forget that when they go to the voting booth.

But there are several Democratic senators who according to those very sites have worse voting records... for this year in particular Evan Bayh as well as the mentioned Ben Nelson have voted more with the Republicans than she has. Over lifetime records, Max Baucus, Mary Landrieu, and Kay Hagan (as well as, of course, Ben Nelson) have been worse -- and I'm not even counting Arlen Specter since he jumped off the Republican ship. Over their lifetime voting records when it comes to health care in particular, along with most of the others mentioned here, Jim Webb, Carper Thomas, and Claire McCaskill, have voted more conservatively than she has.

She's a Blue Dog, but she's not the worst one there is.... and she really needs to win this year now that she is the Democratic nominee for our state. It's not that I wouldn't rather have had someone more progressive like Bill Halter, but it didn't work out this time around. I want to at least make sure the situation for Arkansas being represented in the Senate doesn't get any *worse*.

[Radical Activist]

57. Actual center-left and liberal Democrats.

No conservative ones. We have to stop pretending that electing people like Lincoln and Nelson are victories.

[breadandwine]

124. Let's all believe in the tooth fairy.

We are about to lose both the House and Senate. There is a tsunami coming fueled by astroturf, right wing media, canned right wing hate, rigged electronic voting machines and unlimited corporate cash approved by the coup plotters in the Supreme Court. And our side is doing absolutely NOTHING to stop it except telling people to wear a smile button because Obama passed unpopular bills so he can pad his resume.

There IS no supermajority because come the election there will be no majority PERIOD. We are guaranteed to lose both houses.


"If you run a Republican against a Republican, the Republican will win every time."

------Harry Truman.

[BzaDem]

2. You are correct that we need a few over the threshold.

No one would argue that we could pass anything progressive if we only had 219 seats in the House. Similarly, it is difficult to pass progressive legislation even if we had 60 votes in the Senate. (The healthcare bill was an amazing accomplishment given this reality -- people like Blanche Lincoln and Ben Nelson knew that by voting for the bill they were signing their death warrant in the next election, and they voted for it anyway.)

We need at least a few over 60, so that the Nelsons and Lincolns of the world can vote against a bill (meaning we won't have to seek concessions to get their votes). Most of the Senate is pretty progressive right now; I think a public option would have easily gotten 56 votes, and with a lot of pushing might have gotten 58. That means if we were to have 2-4 Senators more, we could have passed it.

Unfortunately, many people here think that reducing our Senate majority is somehow more productive for progressive causes than increasing it. Only time and hard reality will change their minds.

[me b zola]

4. As long as he campaigns for republicans in primaries like Blanche Lincoln

we will never have a super majority.

[BzaDem]

6. He campaigned for Blanche Lincoln (a little) because she voted for the Healthcare bill.

Everyone keeps touting Blanche Lincoln's vote against the public option as proof that she is an evil conservative. But what really happened was that Lieberman wanted to stick it to the Democrats, so he would NEVER have voted for a public option. Once this became clear, she was going to vote against something that had no chance of passage to please her conservative electorate.

But if she really wanted to win over all else, do you know what she would have done? She would have killed HCR. She could have single-handedly done it, and that probably is the only thing that would have given her even a chance of winning in November. Yet she didn't. She knew she was going to lose and she voted for HCR anyway.

My point is that Obama's campaigning for Lincoln is really not a signal that Obama wants conservative senators. Lincoln often votes against progressive positions when they have no chance of passing, and she does indeed vote for certain progressive positions when she is the deciding vote. Even if you believe that Lincoln is still too conservative even when she is the deciding vote, the fact that she voted for HCR is reason enough for Obama to lend her a little bit of his time. It is not going to matter, since after the HCR vote she was never going to win (nor was Halter).

[IndianaGreen]

39. Lincoln opposed the public option

so it follows that we shouldn't reward those that voted against our class interests.

[me b zola]

50. Exactly. n/t

[BzaDem]

59. Did you even read my post? Lincoln opposed the PO only AFTER it was clear it would fail

due to Lieberman's opposition. She SUPPORTED the PO on her website months earlier, when this wasn't clear. She changed after Lieberman changed.

On the other hand, she voted FOR the healthcare bill, when she was the deciding vote. She could have single-handedly killed HCR, and she chose not to.

[AlinPA]

89. That sounds like a person with no principles. She was not consistent.

[Raineyb]

91. She bragged about killing it.

And I don't give a shit why she opposed it. She opposed it and to reward her by helping her to win the primary is shooting progressive causes in the foot.

[laughingliberal]

109. Yes, she did.nm

[lib2DaBone]

5. Just because there is a "D" next to their name...

doesn't mean they care about the people? Why Bother?

Joe Liberman....Max Baucus....Ben Nelson...

(add your own)

[BzaDem]

8. What really matters is whether or not the candidate is the most progressive candidate that can win.

Joe Lieberman obviously should be voted out. Connecticut is a progressive state, and a more progressive candidate could EASILY win. So much so that he couldn't win a Democratic primary in 2006. The sooner Lieberman is shown the door the better.

Baucus is from Montana (a conservative state), but Montana has elected liberals to the Senate (such as Tester). This is a more ambiguous case.

Ben Nelson, on the other hand, has an extremely conservative electorate and I doubt it would vote for someone to his left. Even if Nelson votes against the party on many issues, he also votes for the party on many issues. (He could have single-handedly defeated healthcare and secured his re-election; he now will likely lose after he was the deciding vote in favor of HCR.) I would rather have Nelson than any Republican. If he were running in Connecticut I would support a primary challenger without thinking, but he is not.

[elleng]

10. You have MY vote Bza!

[IndianaGreen]

40. The lesser of two evils have given us nothing but an unbroken chain of evil

It is an addiction that must be broken!

[BzaDem]

61. Even if we assume for the sake of argument that is true, it does NOT follow that the greater of two

evils will somehow reduce the evil. In fact, it will increase it. One would have thought this was obvious.

Basically, if you think what we are under right now is "evil," you have NO IDEA how good you have it. You just don't have a clue. If you want to "break the chain" by electing the GREATER of two evils, you will realize this in a very acute way. You will eventually start voting for the "lesser of two evils" again, because one can only inflict so much political pain on themself before survival instancts forces them to see reason (whether they like it or not).

[Name removed]

66. Deleted message

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

[BzaDem]

68. Just because you don't like either party doesn't mean there is ever going to be a viable 3rd option.

In other words, while it is clear you think the political system is a "joke," it does not follow that there is a way out of the two-party system just because you don't like the two-party system. In general, there is a difference between what one wants and what one gets.

You are trying to resolve the inconsistency between our government and what you want our government to be, by assuming there is some way to move our government to become what you want it to be. The correct way to resolve the inconsistency is to realize that it isn't an inconsistency, and that the government cannot be moved (under any scenario) to what you want it to be. The Democrats and Republicans are the two choices. If you don't like the Democrats, you could certainly help the Republicans, but there isn't a third choice just because you don't like the two choices.

[IndianaGreen]

70. and you remain stuck in partisan politicking, like Charlie Brown hoping that Lucy won't yank the

football away at the last second.

The only recourse lies outside the corrupt and fixed political system. Only through mass action in our own communities can we hope for change.

[BzaDem]

73. You are again assuming that something "outside the corrupt and fixed political system" can actually

get you the change you want.

You are simply assuming (without argument) that it is in fact possible to get the change you want under ANY scenario. This is (for the most part) an incorrect assumption.

If you want fundamental change, then the Constitution needs to be changed to remove winner-take-all elections and institute something like proportional representation. Until that happens, you can continue to hope for some viable 3rd option, but that won't make it magically appear.

[IndianaGreen]

75. Democrats do not support repeal of Electoral College, or push for proportional representation

The political elites in both parties are quite happy keeping things the way they are.

Here is an example of what I think is important, mass popular action in our community:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=151x7670

I was there in support of the Hyatt hotel workers that are getting the shaft and want their union to be recognized. One of the workers complained that she used to clean 16 rooms a day, but now she is being made to clean 30 rooms a day with a pay cut no less.

[BzaDem]

I'm not saying that mass action can't do anything. I'm simply saying that we have two viable parties

whether you accept that or not. When elections come around, they are always and everywhere a choice between the two parties.

If the Democrats never support reform of the winner-take-all system, that just means we aren't going to get reform of the winner-take-all system, and that we will remain on the two-party system forever. It does NOT mean that there is somehow a magical viable third party.

[Name removed]

81. Deleted message

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

[BzaDem]

84. EVEN IF YOU ASSUME THAT IS TRUE, we still have two viable parties. Not three, and not one.

You may claim that neither party represents the interest of the American workers, but that does NOT change (or even claim to change) the fact that we have two viable parties. Your fondness or dislike of the parties is logically independent of whether or not we have two parties.

[Radical Activist]

63. That's the point.

We need more than 60 Democrats because some of them suck.

What do you mean, why bother? Because it impacts every issue that goes before the Senate.

[Bluebear]

7. Yes, it's our apathy and inaction that's to blame.

:eyes:

[readmoreoften]

23. Why are you hurting Obama? Don't you know that accepting an increase in war commitments,

the decimation of teachers unions, the "rethinking" of social security, being forced into buying for-profit insurance with no checks, allowing BP to continue to disregard the EPA, and ignoring teh gay is OUR ONLY HEDGE AGAINST FASCISM!

Come on, Bluebear. If we don't vote for "send 1200 troops to the border "we'll get "send 6000 troops to the border"

[rug]

9. Why? Are the Republicans becoming recalcitrant on Afghanistan?

[treestar]

21. Amen! 60 Democrats. No Independents as part of the 60. No

Lieberman needed!

[ThomCat]

22. If we had another 5 or 10 dems, would we finally get

some progressive legislation enacted?

I think they'll always get excuses for why it somehow wasn't enough. Somehow there was some reason the lobbyists had to get what they wanted. Somehow the progressive goal just wasn't "practical enough" for this administration. :(

I think we definitely need more dems. But I think we need different dems. We definitely need dems in office who have an honest commitment to our base. Unlike the dishonesty we've seen from our current administration and most of our party leaders.

[Raggz]

28. No Difference

There was a supermajority for more than a year and what got passed?

If it didn't pass then - it won't pass with another supermajority, right?

It's not how many Democrats are in the senate - it is which Democrats are there.

[Lorien]

52. +1. nt

[JVS]

115. No. All that would happen is that another 5 or 10 conservadems would start being real assholes

[Posteritatis]

116. I'm starting to think there'd need to be, oh, 130 Demoratic senators for that to happen. (nt)

[UTUSN]

25. K&R #16 n/t

[Scurrilous]

26. K & R

:thumbsup:

[LoZoccolo]

27. I am with you. n/t

[Hydra]

29. President Obama doesn't WANT a supermajority

If they had one, they couldn't slide the Military funding through with no fanfare and have the Repubs and Lieberman block the progressive stuff.

Non-Majority: "Oh, sorry...it's your fault for not getting us enough reps...try harder next time..."

Majority: "Oh, sorry...the US is a conservative country, and we have all of these 'Blue Dogs'...try again and get us more reps..."

Super Majority: "Oh, I'm sorry...we STILL can't reach a consensus on anything other than Military Spending and Bailouts...we need 70% to get anything progressive done..."

[patrice]

30. bullshit.

[Hydra]

31. Please elaborate

On where that stuff was NOT the excuse for not doing the right thing, while IWR, MCA 2006 and FISA gutting slid through, sometimes with 70% support?

[IndianaGreen]

36. It is all true, and you know it!

Your peace avatar and rainbow flag notwithstanding!

[Lorien]

51. True. That would be the ultimate Dem nightmare; no one left to blame

for their failed right wing pro-corporate policies but themselves. The only way a larger majority would improve things is if we elected actual Liberal Progressives in huge numbers, but that would mean unseating quite a few incumbents.

[Junkdrawer]

60. +10000

[HughMoran]

32. I'd love to see that happen

I'll do my best to get NH in the win column this November - it's not going to be easy though.

[tavalon]

33. Do you remember the heady days when we were going to give Obama a veto proof majority

in the Senate? I'm really excited to have a new bar to reach for! Thanks!

[Enthusiast]

34. It sure would be better

than hearing Republicans gloat over their triumph-how it was a mandate. The problem is many constituents don't have money to spend. Corporations have near unlimited money to spend. Go Democrats!

[IndianaGreen]

35. LMAO

We gave the Democrats a Democratic Congress and a Democratic White House, and for what?

You are on your own!

[Raine]

122. Heh that was my exact reaction

too :spray: give them a super majority for what??? Been there, done that, I'm out! :argh:

[Hannah Bell]

37. maybe if the democrats gave people a reason to vote for them they'd get more voters to sign

onto your idea.

[IndianaGreen]

38. What the OP means is for us to bust our asses getting the vote out

To that I'll say "No!"

The only thing I am doing in November is go to the polls and vote for those candidates that have earned my vote.

[sufrommich]

42. You live in Indiana. What are the odds of a

left of center politician ever getting elected in Indiana?

[IndianaGreen]

44. My Congressman Andre Carson is a fine example of a progressive

He didn't just babble bullshit about supporting LGBT rights. He walked the walk!

[sufrommich]

47. Your congressman has a record of supporting democratic

measures in the house, including the health reform bill. He also voted against limiting spending in Afghanistan or requiring a timetable in Afghanistan.He worked for Homeland Security before becoming a congressman.In some instances he is more progressive than moderate democrats, in some cases he's not.

[IndianaGreen]

54. When did Obama march on a PRIDE parade?

Andre Carson did this year, as did our candidate for mayor Melina Kennedy. Carson is also a sponsor of a bill repealing DADT, and he supports marriage equality for LGBTs. He is head and shoulders above our two pukish Senators.

[deacon]

41. After the fiasco with the unemployment vote it shows how critical the mid terms are. n/t

[Cal33]

43. Yes. Let's give him a super-majority both in the Senate and

in the House -- and no Blue Dog congressmen either! But, can
it be done?

[IndianaGreen]

45. We cannot vote for Blue Dogs or ConservaDems

Otherwise we end up with DINOs siding with the GOP against our own economic interests.

[Cal33]

131. I expressed mtyself badly. By "Can it be done?" I meant

"Will we be able to give Obama a super-majority in both houses this November?"

[Name removed]

46. Deleted message

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

[asdjrocky]

49. We already did that once.

Worked out great, right? Right?

[judesedit]

53. We have to give them even bigger numbers this time, dems. Let's get some GOOD people in there.

Dems are by far more for the middle class working people of America than the greedy GOP. Pay close attention to who is running. Vote for the candidate with the most integrity, NOT the most money. That has been our downfall. We've actually allowed members to BUY their seats by not stopping them. Even to the point of spending their own millions to do it. That is total bullshit. Dems vote and vote big, but vote good. Drive your fellow allies to the polls, too. While there, pay close attention to what is going on. Electronic voting machines still in use, bought by "Canadian" firm. The GOP just outsourced the company. It's still in their hands. Vote absentee whenever possible.

[IndianaGreen]

55. Democrats that voted to ban the importation of cheaper drugs from Canada are no friends of ours

and don't deserve reelection.

[BzaDem]

62. Yeah. Instead, we need to elect Republicans that would INCREASE the period of exclusivity.

For every policy you claim is bad, I can come up with a worse policy that will be enacted by following your strategy.

[IndianaGreen]

65. The 2 major parties represent different factions of the ruling class

Neither of them represents the interests of the working class.

[BzaDem]

69. Even if we accept that as true for the sake of argument, that doesn't mean they are going anywhere.

You still need to make a choice. Life is full of choices you aren't wild about -- that doesn't mean the choice doesn't exist just because you don't like it. The Democrats could be really really bad, but just because you feel this way doesn't mean there is an option that is better.

[IndianaGreen]

71. My choice is that capitalism must die if we are to save our nation and the planet

Nothing good can come out of a system based on greed, was the warning issued by W.E.B DuBois many years ago.

[BzaDem]

74. What if I were to tell you that capitalism will never die no matter how much you want it to die.

In other words, even if you really really really want it to die, then it still won't die. You could even double the number of reallys in that sentence, but it still won't die. Heck, you could even quadruple them.

My point is that just because you don't like our system doesn't mean that it is always possible to change the system to be more to your liking. You may live your entire life, and it still won't change to be what you want. No matter what you do.

[IndianaGreen]

76. Capitalism is dying right in front of your eyes

Why the bailouts? Why the sudden rush to privatize Social Security, which like HCR is nothing but a gimmick to transfer wealth from the workers to Wall Street? Why the need to conduct military operations in 75 countries?

[BzaDem]

77. Not really.

Nothing you cite even remotely resembles the death of capitalism (or anything close). They may represent things people don't like, but the do not in any way indicate that capitalism is going anywhere.

[IndianaGreen]

79. You obviously haven't been keeping tabs on what we are doing in Latin America.

Have you ever heard of the coup in Honduras? New military bases in Colombia. Influx of US forces into Costa Rica? Drums of war from the State Department, just as if John Bolton was still over there?

[BzaDem]

80. Again, those are things people don't like, not indications that capitalism is going anywhere. n/t

[IndianaGreen]

82. Do you even know what feeds capitalism?

Do you even realize that the so-called American Dream is just an illusion built on the backs of the people we oppress across the world?

[BzaDem]

83. Still waiting for a single indication that capitalism is going anywhere.

You just keep trying to change the subject. While I would of course disagree with everything in your last post, it has nothing to do with your thesis that capitalism is currently dying or will ever die.

[IndianaGreen]

85. Just watch the news!

Ask yourself why do we need a permanent state of war?

[BzaDem]

86. The fact that we are currently involved in wars does NOT logically imply that the survival

of capitalism requires that we are involved in such wars.

Furthermore, EVEN if we assume that it is NECESSARY to be in a permanent state of war to maintain capitalism (which is bogus), that seems to indicate that we will simply be in a permanent state of war. Not that capitalism is going anywhere.

"The news" does not provide any indication that capitalism is going anywhere. I'm still waiting.

[SunsetDreams]

87. BzaDem, nice posts in this thread.

[sabrina 1]

113. The news does not provide news.

Capitalism is just one more 'ism' that has failed. It will take a while for the final death throes but it is a dying system. Here in the U.S. of course, we keep the illusion alive, 'the free market' 'the market will take care of it' etc. etc.

But no system ever survived after it destroyed the working class. It doesn't happen overnight, and it happens in different ways. But history is replete with examples of the collapse of various 'isms' that once appeared to be indestructible. And I'm sure at this stage of the fall there were people still in denial in every case.

[BzaDem]

117. I think you are in denial about which system actually collapsed, and which system has no indication

that it is collapsing.

[IndianaGreen]

140. One trillion dollars for your fraking war on terror

That's a major collapse!

[BzaDem]

143. Not really. It's just something you aren't wild about. n/t

[David Zephyr]

56. It's the best thing the Left could do to push Obama to the Left.

Instead of sitting back and criticizing, election time is here.

[mstinamotorcity]

67. I am down with that

anything to start real change.

[Touchdown]

72. Yeah! They need the "Fucking Retard" vote this year!

:crazy:

[IndianaGreen]

78. Let Rahm go door to door in our modest neighborhoods

and get people to vote their dashed hopes again.

[SunsetDreams]

88. If you are going to quote, at least do it correctly

It was "Fucking Retarded". I am DEFINITELY not a Rahm fan, but this quote is taken out of context.
A few(mind you a few) democrats at that meeting said that they were going to start airing ads against Conservative Dems.
When you consider, that chances are, you will not be able to get a Progressive IN over those Conservative Dems, in those RED districts where most of them come from, it seems counter productive. While his choice of words were over the top, he is right in this instance.

While I don't care for Conservative Dems, they are a necessity right now, in order to get ANY legislation across. The Republicans are blocking everything. What needs to happen is getting a bigger majority, and that means picking off Republican seats, in toss up disticts, and/or unsafe seats. Going after the Conservative Dems, is not the way to go, especially if they are in RED districts. That is a waste of time, energy and money. We needs more Left leaning democrats, but you won't get one from a Red district.

[Touchdown]

93. IN context, out of context. Makes no difference.

Everybody here on this site knows EXACTLY how Rahm Emmanuel feels about us. The statement made, after he clarified or not, still stands as a freudian slip at the very least.

[BzaDem]

He feels negatively towards certain people because of actions, not because of something inherent in

the people.

He dislikes people who claim to be "liberal" but instead bash Democrats, as if there is some alternative to the left of the Democratic party. He thinks that is incredibly stupid. While I don't agree with many things Rahm does, I also think that particular idea is incredibly stupid. I would never use the language he did, but I agree with the idea that it is not usually intelligent to attack Democrats if you claim to be liberal (with the exception being if the Democrat in question is too conservative for their district, and a more progressive Democrat could actually in in that district).

I don't think Rahm would be saying that if people did not take actions such as attacking Democrats from the left in districts where more left-leaning Democrats couldn't win. It's not about the people, it's about the actions. I have no idea how Rahm "feels about you," but I do know that he feels negatively about your strategy (and uses improper and unfortunate language to make his valid point).

[Touchdown]

96. What strategy is mine?

Criticizing Congress and the Administration that their policies are too conservative? That their rhetoric is too conciliatory? That I would like them both to work for the people more and the Insurance Industry less? To grow a backbone and tell the Republicans to get on board or be run over?

I do not consider any of those things unreasonable attacks. I would like to know where in the world you got the fucked up idea that I was for some other party.

What is it with this site today? Everybody thinks they fucking know me! You are one more person that doesn't. Got that?

[BzaDem]

97. You said that Rahm's comment was indicative about how he felt about "us."

I assumed you understood who Rahm was attacking from that sentence. If you didn't know, then I made the wrong assumption.

Rahm was not attacking people who simply criticized the administration. He was attacking people for supporting buying out TV ads bashing Democrats (as if there were a party to the left of the Democrats that would somehow be helped by such TV ads.)

[Touchdown]

98. I was talking about Rahm historically.

Ever since his time in the House, I've loosely followed his opinons, words and actions. I read the book "The Thumping" which gave him pretty much all the credit of the 2006 victory, and virtually none to Howard Dean and the DNC's 50 state strategy (which at times, Rahm's DCCC actively undermined).

As a general rule, it is my belief that Rahm does not care for any progressive or real liberal Democrats, just as a necessary evil to get elected. He is more than happy with the just enough electoral votes strategy that the DLC often pursues. Whatever context he may have been trying to express in the Fucking Retarded moment, he has a long history of casual, and at times active dismissal of liberals.

And yes, I did forget quite a lot about the actual context of the Fucking Retarded debacle, mainly because I chalked the comment up as typical Rahm Emmanuel at his classic douchebaggy self.

[sabrina 1]

114. Oh please, Rahm Emanuel hates what he perceives to be

'liberals' with their 'pet issues'. I can give you tons of quotes from DLCers like him on exactly how they feel about the base of the Democratic Party.

Let's stop denying facts. If we are to move forward, to get people who are truly disgusted and ready to quit on Democrats back in time for November, the best way is to acknowledge the problems. He is one of them.

When people went to the polls to throw out Republicans, they did NOT expect the party they elected to appoint Republicans to positions of power. That is another problem. Alan Simpson, eg. Pete Peterson, Erskine Bolwes. Would anyone on this board in their right minds have ever considered electing these Republicans to the position of dog-catcher? Yet, this is what we got. Obama takes our votes against Republicans and hires Republicans into positions that should have gone to democrats.

And they are not the only ones. When we elect Democrats it's because we don't want Republicans. If Democrats are going to elevate them out of the gutter into which we tossed them, then what is the point of electing Democrats?

I want to know before committing to Democrats, that if we do support them, we get RID of Republicans and their brainless ideas like privatizing Social Security. That one issue alone could lose the whole election for them in November. You'd think they'd know that already. WE DON'T want Republican ideas.

I see the push to try to bring back disaffected former supporters with more promises of 'if we can only get a bigger majority' etc. etc. The way to bring them back is to start earning their respect. And that has to come from the leadership.

A good start would be to stop asking Republicans, like Lindsey Graham for advice. Can Obama not think of any Democrats he can ask for advice?

And stop appointing Blue Dogs, like Max Baucus and Salazar to powerful positions.

Show me some progressives that Obama has sought our for advice on major issues? Who, eg, did he seek advice from on Offshore Drilling? Who told him it was 'safe'? That person should be fired.

But to continue to trash and blame progressives will have the exact opposite effect of what they are trying to achieve. They need those people who put them there in the first place who were then told to 'stfu' and get lost. Whose ever strategy that was also needs to be fired.

[SunsetDreams]

120. ok I will wait for your quotes

with links and or video. Preferrably video so I know it's not reporter spin

On edit: video might be edited, faux news has taught us that.

[sabrina 1]

121. Iow, you don't want to know the truth.

They've been posted here many times. But there are none so blind as though who will not see.

Not willing to address the other issues, either, like the appointments of Republicans we threw out? How do you explain that? How do you guarantee that we won't get even more Republicans and Blue Dogs in powerful positions if we elect Democrats?

How do explain voting for one party and then having that party bring their Republican friends along for the ride?

How many Democrats did Bush appoint to positions of power? This WH needs to get over its fascination with Republicans and their ideas. If I want to vote for a Republican I will do that. Clearly that was not our intention when we supported Democrats.

If you are an example of the strategy to get people back on board, I'm afraid it will fail miserably. One thing the party will have to do is to reign in their online loyalists who attack everyone who dares to disagree with a policy. This more than anything, is alienating people from the party.

[SunsetDreams]

125. asking you for quotes

is attacking you? You made a claim, I just wanted to see for myself.
Saying they've been posted here many times, doesn't cut it.

Addressing your sentences 2, 3, and 4. Are you advocating that we shouldn't support Democrats?

Sorry, I will support Democrats period. If that labels me a loyalist, so be it.

online loyalist who attack? Please explain this. It is a Democratic site, yes. That's first and foremost. Not everyone is going to agree with a posters opinion, if you view that as an attack, that's taking it entirely too personal. Even among Democrats, there is going to be disagreement.

[sabrina 1]

126. Lol, are you comprehension impaired or

just pretending to be?

Are YOU advocating that we elect people who put Republicans in powerful positions? And if so, why? Do YOU think that Republicans have good ideas and should be brought into the process even when the people throw them out? You haven't answered that.

I don't know about you, but I reject Republicans and their ideas. I support Progressive Democrats who stand up for the Party Platform. Who do YOU support? You have no problem apparently with Republicans in powerful positions in our government however they get there.

As for providing quotes, you were offered quotes, you rejected 'newspaper quotes' 'video clips' and everything short of presenting the actual people speaking to you live. Meaning, you prefer to avoid the truth. Let me know exactly what form the quotes have to be in for your approval. And yes, they certainly have been posted here, many, many times.

[SunsetDreams]

127. Try me, I'm sure there is unedited video out there somewhere

There would have to be, since you say it happened.

"You have no problem apparently with Republicans in powerful positions in our government however they get there."

LOL I really said that, the reading comprehension here isn't mine.

I reject Republicans as well, in that I will not vote for them period.

"As for providing quotes, you were offered quotes" You never offered quotes, you only said they have been posted many times.
I guess, since you are not willing to provide them, your statements can be looked at as hyperbole? I don't prefer to avoid the truth. I just don't take hearsay as the truth, and neither should anyone else. Let me be clear on what I meant, since you seem to be misunderstanding.

Articles that say "a top democratic strategist, administration, blah blah" without giving a name. I reject.
Quoting a person even can be suspect, in todays media, just because they say so and so said something doesn't mean it's true.
In this day of media lies and slander, one would almost have to be watching a person say it live, or having an unedited video.

It's irrelevant of whether they've been posted here many times, unless you can provide the links.

Now if you can provide the links, I'll look at the quotes, and decide for myself whether to be outraged or not.

[sabrina 1]

142. Oh, it happened. The DLC leadership of the Democratic

Party has left no doubt about their feelings about Democrats who form the base of the party. They have left reams of material to make sure no one misunderstands how they feel about that particular issue.

You could start, and I did say start, because they began several years ago as they worked to take over the party, here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=244x2328

You don't even have to leave this website. Howard Dean, according to them leads the 'fringes' of the Democratic Party. That ought to help you get started finding out what the leadership of the party thinks of the very same activists who worked to get them in power.

And then you can continue on to learn more about what they think of our 'little pet issues', you know, like women's issues, gay rights etc.

But I suspect you already know what they think. I don't know many people who don't, which is why they have lost those who worked the hardest, the 'activists' they so despise, to get them elected, along with Independents who don't happen to think of important issues such as civil rights as 'little pet issues'.

Dean, never one to take insults lying down, being that he has a spine said what needed to be said at that time. Of course they've said a lot more since then:

Dean Statement in Response to DLC's Charge that Public Servants are
"Fringe Activists"

“Once again, the DLC has chosen to put their own political agenda
ahead of the progress needed to unite the Democratic Party. This election
has barely begun, and the DLC has repeatedly dismissed people who attend
caucuses, who get out the vote, and now the 1.3 million members of AFSCME as
‘fringe activists’ who do not reflect ‘the mainstream values, national pride
and the economic aspirations of middle-class and working people.’

“The DLC staff can say what they want about me, but they owe an
apology to the 1.3 million members of AFSCME. Our teachers, our health care
workers, and our state and local public servants don't need a lesson from
Washington insiders about the needs and concerns of middle- and
working-class families. What they need is a Democratic Party that will stand
up for them.”

As I said, just a start. That was six years ago and since then they have only added to their portfolio of insults against the party's base and against some very good Democrats like Howard Dean.

So, since they so despise the activists who got them elected and don't seem to feel they need them, many of those activists have decided they are right, they don't need them, their time or their money.

And if they continue to drive people away, THEY, The DLC, the Rightwing of the Democratic Party, currently leading the party, will be guilty of handing this country over to Republicans in the Fall.

[BzaDem]

94. .

[SunsetDreams]

110. he was hardly talking about DU

or Democrats in general.

Context is everything, which should be what Andrew Breitbart/Faux News, should have made us all realize.

[phleshdef]

101. I thought it was a commerical against HCR that he called retarded?

Either way, he said the running of a commerical was retarded, he never called any group of people retarded. No generalizations were made whatsoever. The people that lie about what Rahm said are as bad as the people that said Al Gore claimed to invent the internet. Its simply not true, people have been called on it and yet they still continue to lie through their teeth. Anyone that does something like that deserves the integrity of all their opinions put to question.

[Touchdown]

105. That is a false equivalency. No way the two are comparable

Most people don't know the context of what Rahm said, since it wasn't significant enough in world events to matter much in the end. Not to mention that Emmanuel has a history of antagonism towards liberals in general.

The smearing of Al Gore was a concerted effort by the RNC to alter his words deliberately for political gain. A gain that worked with the media's complicity, that the election in 2000 came down to 530 something votes in Florida, and a de facto invalidation of the election and the placement of George Bush as President by the Supreme Court.

To say that they are comparable, much less that the people are "just as bad" is disingenuous at best. I would have to question the agenda, and integrity of anyone who would claim equivalency.

[phleshdef]

135. Nope. Its 100% the same thing. You are taking what someone said and manipulating the quote...

...to mean something different entirely.

Al Gore talked about how he helped pioneer legislation to create the backbone of the internet.
People lied and say he said he invented the internet.

Rahm Emmanuel said that it was fucking retarded to run a commercial against HCR.
People lied and said he called progressives fucking retarded.

And yes they are just as bad and in some ways WORSE because people supposedly on our side are suppose to have more integrity than that.

And if you are one that has perpetuated the lies regarding what Rahm said, your integrity it shit as well.

[Touchdown]

136. Nope! 78% non-sequitur

We simply don't agree. Drop the accusatory shit.

[phleshdef]

138. I'll drop the accusatory shit when everyone else does.

If you are going to continually accuse Rahm Emmanuel of saying something he didn't say, then expect someone with an interest in honesty to eventually call you on it. If you aren't participating in spreading the lie around, then don't worry about it. It doesn't apply to you.

[Touchdown]

139. Alright! I'll drop it. I didn't know Rahm was your boyfriend!

:eyes:

[SunsetDreams]

92. I'm with you Make7, thank you for posting.

[mitchtv]

95. not buying

what good would it do? they'll still fuck around and do nothing. Let them expell Ben Nelson as a sign of good faith

[red red red]

100. K & R n/t

[opihimoimoi]

104. i'm in......k n r

[Hubert Flottz]

111. +1

The GOP needs to be run out of Washington ASAP.

[opihimoimoi]

123. The GOPers are like termites...they keep coming back

[Ross K]

107. Love to!

But, sorry, don't see it happening. (Dems will retain control, tho.)

[LooseWilly]

108. What, again? We had one for nearly a year, nothing happened. Remember?

I do...

[BzaDem]

118. I think something happened on December 24th, 2009

though I also think you are in denial about its benefits.

[upi402]

112. true believers make me blush

:rolls eyes:

[Skip Intro]

119. DU is not going to elect anyone.

Politics, sadly, is a pendulum. It's swinging back the other way now. A charade that can't last.

[sendero]

128. We'll be lucky....

.... to even retain control of the house. The level of delusion around here is astonishing.

Obama will be punished in November because he has not stabilized the economy. It was a daunting task to be sure, but once he filled his cabinet with idiots with Geithner and Summers he had almost no chance.

Obama's failure to accomplish anything of value has nothing to do with the number of easy votes he has in congress. George Bush got almost everthing he wanted with much less.

Obama didn't get we WE want because HE doesn't want it. He doesn't want to piss off any rich white people. Get a clue already.

[SunsetDreams]

129. "Obama will be punished in November"

Actually, no, it is the American people who will be punished.
Yeah let's get the Party of NO in there, that will accomplish SO much!

"Obama didn't get we WE want because HE doesn't want it. He doesn't want to piss off any rich white people"

Does he really think that? Can you read his mind?

[sendero]

130. I don't have to read anybody's mind..

.. if you look at the actions a person takes it is not hard to see where they are coming from.

Obama has PROVEN he is unwilling to rock the boat in any way. He has DISASTROUSLY tried to play ball with the Republicans and has thereby played RIGHT INTO THEIR HANDS.

If Obama had WANTED a public option or the reinstatement of Glass-Stegall, he could have gotten it. It is axiomatic that a president is not going to get anything they don't fight for, and all Obama sort of fights for is to pass SOMETHING, ANYTHING so he can claim victory.

Sorry, the health care reform bill was barely a victory, and the financial reform bill is full of crap we don't need and fails to do the one single thing that that really REALLY REALLY needed to be done, STOP THE BANKS FROM GAMBLING WITH TAXPAYER MONEY.

[SunsetDreams]

132. I disagree

What Obama needs is a bigger majority of Left leaning Democrats, in order to get more Progressive Legislation passed. What he has to contend with is the Party of No, and compromising with Conservative Dems. With the current makeup of the majority, that is what he has to deal with. He cannot legislate, no matter how much you want him too. Congress writes the laws, and passes them. Sure Obama, could veto them, because they don't go far enough, but why do that? It would be nothing but triangulation once again, in the Senate and House, because we don't have enough Progressives elected. He is taking what Progress he can get, with what he has to work with.

You are right, the health care bill did not go far enough.

I don't agree about the financial reform bill. I'm not sure if you seen this, since you didn't post on that thread. It looks like Wall Street is none too happy with the financial reform bill.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=433&topic_id=383836

[sendero]

133. We'll never get a better mix of left leaning..

.. congress than we have right now, until after the Republicans have finished destroying the country. That might take a while so don't hold your breath.

In the meantime, Obama could have accomplished a lot more than the did. He simply did not want to. He clearly believes that you can compromise with the devil and come out "pretty good".

We shall see.

[SunsetDreams]

134. I never say never,

We need to go after those Republican seats, and in order to do that, we have to vote. If we give up, then you are right, never will be a reality.

"He simply did not want to". It might appear that way to you, but we have to look at the reality of what he has to work with. I already answered in the previous post about compromising, so I won't do so again. I'm sure you read it.

Look, I know it's frustrating. There are plenty of bills that didn't go far enough, but that is an act of Congress, not Obama. He can scream till he is blue in the face, but it doesn't change the makeup of the majority, or the Party of No.

I think most of this anger, while not all, is misplaced on Obama, when it should be on the ones writing the laws.

[TomCADem]

137. K&R!

Good to hear someone who is not promoting apathy and disengagement.

[Scurrilous]

141. Kick

:kick:

[t0dd]

144. It isn't needing one or two Republicans that waters down legislation

It's backroom, corporate deal-making. That's why drug reimportation was scrapped from the health care bill: because the pharmaceutical companies hated it, and it would have cost them billions. That had bipartisan support until the administration reminded a few Dems of the deal--then they fell in place and opposed it for illogical reasons.

That's why it's important to realize, even with some "super majority", with the current establishment, advancing legislation that actually benefits ordinary people is a long-shot because neither party gives a damn about us.