"The next election isn't a case of the lesser of two evils: It's good v. evil — pure and simple."

[Pirate Smile]

I say, a tea party victory

By Stephen L. Goldstein

September 23, 2011
Supposedly, Obama's supporters are abandoning him. According to the (usual) suspect polls, they are angry that candidate Obama made promises prez Obama has not kept. Big deal! Congress makes the difference between all presidents' goals and how much they are able to accomplish. No one should hand a victory to Sen. Mitch McConnell et al, who declared they would do anything to make Obama a one-term president.

Obama supporters shouldn't make the mistake of thinking they can sit out the next election in protest, without paying a terrible price. Politics isn't child's play. You can't go off and sulk as you would if your mother refused to buy you designer jeans. Progressives need to redouble their effort to get Obama re-elected — and to elect a Congress that will pass his legislation. If they don't, they may wake up too late to a tea party/GOP president with majorities in the House and Senate only too eager to change this country into a nightmare the framers of the Constitution never imagined.

Here's a brief list of just a few of the elements of the tea party/GOP revolutionary agenda:

1. An all-corporate judiciary: They will pack the Supreme Court and the federal judiciary with corporate lapdogs.

-snip-
5. No medical, scientific, or technological initiatives: Had a member of the tea party/GOP been president, instead of John F. Kennedy, we would never have gone to the moon. Current candidates would reinstitute the ban on stem cell research, which Obama lifted.

-snip-
7. No Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and health system reform: The most important programs to increase every American's quality of life would be dismantled.

The eight tea party/GOP presidential hopefuls — and their supporters — want all (or most) of this agenda, plus lots more. Underestimate their power at your peril. Floridians elected a tea-party governor and tea-party/GOP-dominated Legislature because too many Democrats didn't vote — and the whole state now suffers. So, they should warn the rest of the country of the price of "sitting one out." The next election isn't a case of the lesser of two evils: It's good v. evil — pure and simple. Read the tea leaves!

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/opinion/fl-sgcol-tea-parties-2012-goldstein-0923-20110923,0,1792089.column

[pipoman]

1. None of those things matter if nobody has a job..

I am opposed to any and all free trade candidates. I will choose the lesser of evils.

[DCBob]

3. and the evil GOP is working hard to make that happen.

[Pirate Smile]

6. All of those things do matter and Republicans have made it clear that they really couldn't care less

about unemployed people - other then how to exploit them to hurt Democrats and gain more power.

[flamingdem]

63. +1 exactly. Anyone who wants to blame Obama on jobs has a "perceptual" problem

to put it mildly

[lunatica]

12. Thereby assuring there will be no jobs in the future

Well, at least no paying jobs. There's be plenty of less than minimum wage jobs servicing the wealthy. You know, maids, chauffeurs, gardeners, nannies, body guards, yatch crews, security and cooks.

[MADem]

16. Elect a GOP President, and that's what will happen. NT

[phleshdef]

24. Bullshit. Unemployment problems are temporary. What the GOP may do could be permanent.

[Bluerthanblue]

35. these things matter even MORE if 'nobody has a job.'.

you can't see that?

:shrug:

[YellowCosmicSun]

38. Of course they do. Not everybody is jobless yet. But they could be.

[MannyGoldstein]

2. Do you think that Obama will re-double his war on Social Security,

Medicare and Medicaid in a second term?

[DCBob]

4. "war".. thats complete non-sense..

do you ever post anything that is accurate?

[MannyGoldstein]

10. Have at it:

You should be able to find lot's of misinformation here:

http://www.handsoffss.org/uploads/7/2/2/6/7226267/the_common_sense_guide_to_social_security_0.5.pdf

Please point out the specifics so I can update it, thanks.

[DCBob]

31. I think you are confused with comments from the Republicans.

Eric Cantor: “50% of beneficiaries under the Social Security program use those moneys as their sole source of income. So we’ve got to protect today’s seniors. But for the rest of us? Listen, we’re going to have to come to grips with the fact that these programs cannot exist if we want America to be what we want America to be.”

Rick Perry, Paul Ryan, Ron Paul all called social security a "ponzi scheme" and many other GOPers want to privatize it.

President Obama has made no such similar statements.

[Pirate Smile]

5. That's ridiculous. If you can't tell the difference between people who want to privatize SS &

voucherize Medicare and people who are willing to make some modifications around the edges so the programs can last longer then you are truly not paying attention to details and are losing the forest for the trees.

[SkyDaddy7]

8. It is no use at trying to reason with...

people like that who operate on their own made up "facts"...But I do applaud you for trying! I too try & point out how flawed their comments are but they don't care. Obviously, as much as I hate to say it we Democrats have a faction of folks who operate much like Tea Baggers in terms of being totally adverse to facts when they do not support what they so desperately want to be true. SAD!

[MannyGoldstein]

13. "Rep. Conyers: Obama Demanded Social Security Cuts--Not GOP"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1631283

[Pirate Smile]

18. "John Conyers Owes the President an Apology "

http://www.thepeoplesview.net/2011/07/john-conyers-owes-president-apology.html

[MannyGoldstein]

23. "We then offered an additional $650 billion in cuts to entitlement programs — Medicare, ..

Medicaid, Social Security." - Barack Obama

I think the author you linked to owes John Conyers an apology.

[MannyGoldstein]

11. Cutting the average worker's benefit by 22% is "modifications around the edges"?

Obama's "deficit commission", led by each party's most virulent foes of Social Security, voted to recommend a 22% cut in the average recipient's benefits over time. Obama rejected many other recommendations of his commission - but not that one.

[ProSense]

19. Here's

"Cutting the average worker's benefit by 22% is "modifications around the edges"?"

...a much needed reality check: National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare

<...>

"safety net" opponents were signing pledges to protect tax breaks for millionaires and corporations. That is not fiscal responsibility. Our National Committee members understand this and, thankfully so does our President. The White House has given us a desperately needed reality check offering a deficit plan providing the common-sense balance most Americans know is necessary. President Obama has flatly rejected conservatives' calls to cut Social Security since this program did not create our deficit crisis. In fact, Social Security has a surplus of $2.6 trillion in its trust fund and can pay full benefits for at least 25 more years. Added to that good news is that the President will not recommend raising Medicare's eligibility age - safeguarding healthcare access for millions of future retirees.

<...>

[MannyGoldstein]

20. Yes, after he first demanded that Social Security be gutted

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1631283

Thank goodness he caved on that, too!

[ProSense]

22. Hmmmm?

"Yes, after he first demanded that Social Security be gutted

Thank goodness he caved on that, too!"

:rofl:

[MannyGoldstein]

25. I understand that you and yours think that slashing Social Security is a hoot

But most Americans feel otherwise.

[ProSense]

30. Again,

"I understand that you and yours think that slashing Social Security is a hoot"

...here's a much needed reality check!

[JoePhilly]

9. I hear he's also leading the war on Christmas.

[phleshdef]

26. You just aren't gaining any traction by spamming the board with "Obama's war on SS".

[MannyGoldstein]

29. Good point.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x931203

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

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

[SanchoPanza]

54. Only after he re-doubles his war on kittens, rainbows, and apple pie.

He has to destroy the Feline-Refraction-Pastry Axis first before he can offer legislation to Congress that reduces the benefits or increases the eligibility requirements of entitlement programs. It's, like, a rule or something. I think it's part of Jefferson's Manual of Parliamentary Practice. The original version. Not the compromised second draft.

Anyway, he has not done it. The benefit/eligibility thing, I mean. Not the destruction of kittens and whatnot.

Wait for it... wait for it...

"HE HAS NOT DONE IT YET!"

I think this is like the Austrian Schoolers predicting that hyperinflation is always right around the corner, which they've been doing ever since Ludwig von Mises called Milton Friedman a communist back in the 40s.

[DCBob]

7. What scares me the most about a teaparty/GOP takeover are election reforms they might enact..

to benefit only GOP candidates. If they get their way Democrats may forever be the minority party.

[Pirate Smile]

14. They are sure trying to do exactly that in the states right now - all of the voter suppression

crap they are passing, trying to fix the electoral college to their advantage, etc. it is truly frightening.

It has really been a wake up call to people re how important statehouses and governorships really are.

In Iowa, Dems controlling the State Senate has been our firewall against the crap that has happened in Wisconsin, Ohio, Michigan and Florida. We control it by one vote and now a State Senate Dem (#@%$&!!!) has allowed herself to get picked off by the Governor and appointed to a position so that we will be having a special election to fill her seat - if Republicans win it, they will control the State Senate now also.

The State Senate is why Republicans haven't been able to put on the ballot an attempt to overturn Iowa's right to gay marriage. The State Senate is why our budget wasn't insane. The State Senate is why we haven't had our collective bargaining rights decimated.

There is a big f#$king difference between the parties and when people keep parroting the line that both party are horrible, both parties want to hurt Social Security and Medicare, both parties ... They are handing the Republicans a HUGE assist in taking control of everything and enacting their Tea Party/Right-Wing agenda.

[Tippy]

15. While many are disatisfied with Obama

If Dems don't vote we all suffer, and it will continue for years.

[MADem]

17. Yep, we can elect a Republican, and then we'll REALLY have something to cry about!

I hate to say it, but that would probably make the contrarians among us very thrilled indeed.

Some people are happiest when they're AGAINST something.

[Pirate Smile]

27. The fact is that we need to do more then just vote. People need to volunteer and donate and

fight like hell to win this next election.

[Tippy]

36. While I am no longer able to do what I was able to do in the past

I still do what i can...and I go to sleep at night worrying and wake up doing the same....When I see so many just giving up, I just can't stand it...

[LWolf]

21. Bullshit.

If I find something good on the ballot, it will get my vote.

"Not _______" is not "good." It's just not _______.

Fear tactics are for the weak. They don't deserve respect. As a matter of fact, they tend to discourage any stupid inclination I might have had to vote for the bad as an an anti-dote for evil.

[ProSense]

28. So

If I find something good on the ballot, it will get my vote.

"Not _______" is not "good." It's just not _______.

...if you find Obama vs Perry (Romney, Cain, Bachmann) on the ballot, who gets your vote?


"Fear tactics are for the weak. They don't deserve respect. As a matter of fact, they tend to discourage any stupid inclination I might have had to vote for the bad as an an anti-dote for evil."

Oh my!

[LWolf]

41. Any one of a dozen better Democrats. nt

[ProSense]

45. Maybe

"Any one of a dozen better Democrats."

...you misunderstood the question: ...if you find Obama vs Perry (Romney, Cain, Bachmann) on the ballot, who gets your vote?

[LWolf]

47. Anyone of a dozen better Democrats.

I understood the question without a problem, thanks. The question obviously tries to falsely narrow my choices to two.

The real world doesn't operate in that simplistic "either or" structure, despite the human determination to force it into such a limited form.

There will be other candidates on that ballot that are neither R nor D. They aren't my only other choices, though.

I can write in anyone I want. I could write in my cat. She'd do less harm than those I find on my ballot, and would be worlds better at getting things done. You should see her in action; she takes no prisoners. She knows how to use a bully pulpit. I've sometimes considered it, but never actually been forced to that extreme.

I don't have to resort to that. I could, if I had time, probably list a couple hundred better Democrats than Obama. That doesn't mean I'd vote for all of them, though; many still aren't good enough. Neo-liberals don't get my vote, regardless of what party they are operating in.

I think I can still find a dozen Democrats worthy of my vote, that I think would do the right thing in the oval office. I can write in any one of them.

I probably will.

[JoePhilly]

32. I find the ironny in your post pretty funny.

Apparently, one can discourage you from voting, not on the issues, or direct comparisons of the candidates, but instead based on the structure of the comparison.

If your voting behavior is that fickle, we might be better off with you not voting.

[LWolf]

42. I find both your spelling and your logic pretty juvenile.

Your reading comprehension is pretty poor, as well.

Nobody will discourage me from voting.

You CAN help convince me not to vote for who ever it is you are pushing by using poor arguments or by trying to bully me with the fear card.

[bornskeptic]

58. If we're picking on posters' spelling mistakes, "whoever" is one word.

Actually, "whomever" is the correct form in that position.

[LWolf]

60. You're right.

Although that's not a spelling error.

Still, an error is an error.

[YellowCosmicSun]

39. Does it feel good to be so righteous?

[LWolf]

43. It feels like shit

to be a minority in a nation of people willing to roll over out of fear, willing to consume propaganda wholesale to make themselves feel more secure.

Why? Do you REALLY care how I feel, or are you trying, in a particularly inept fashion, to attack me personally with a rhetorical question? To attack the messenger instead of the message?

[ProSense]

46. Interesting

"It feels like shit to be a minority in a nation of people willing to roll over out of fear, willing to consume propaganda wholesale to make themselves feel more secure."

So being self-righteous is a sign of courage? Life is full of neccessary, but uncomfortable choices, and inaction (not voting) isn't a virtue.

Your claim to superiority reeks of hypocrisy and irony, declaring that those who don't buy your POV are doing so in an attempt to make themselves feel more secure.

You are the one holding onto a crutch, using the excuse that the best solution to a difficult choice between "bad (less negative) and evil (extremely negative)" is to do your part to ensure that "bad" fails and "evil" wins.

You see, there are real consequences (see Wisconsin, which lost Feingold as a Senator and gained Walker as a Governor).

The voters who stayed home in 2004 rather than vote for Kerry, likely spent the next four years complaining about Bush, and are likely still doing so. In fact, some of those same voters are likely complaining about Bush and Obama.

The country is never going to make significant progress if voters decide that voting isn't worth it, continuing to ignore the very real difference between Democrats and Republicans.

[LWolf]

48. Self-righteous is a judgement neither you, nor the person

who I was responding to, is qualified to make. This is an anonymous message board. You don't know enough about me to make that kind of judgement. It's false.

I'm probably in a better position to determine my own sense of self than you, since I DO know myself pretty well, and you don't know me at all. If I valued your opinion enough to want it, I'd probably let you get to know me better, but I don't. I'm a minority. My screen name indicates my political status. While I'm a Democrat, I'm also not a follower, and I don't base my thoughts, my judgements, or my choices on what any particular individual or group thinks or says. That's what makes me a minority, and that makes me a preferred target.

That doesn't mean that any of the ignorant shit-bombs you're lobbing are finding a target; they're not. I simply don't know you well enough, or respect you enough, that your uninformed opinions about me register in the range of things I care about.

One example of ignorance or dishonest rhetoric on your part:

I have NEVER advocated not voting. EVER. I have never NOT voted. EVER.

This country is never going to make significant progress if she continues to allow corporate control of government, regardless of the party in power, if she continues to allow the erosion of progress previous generations gained, if she continues to treat politics like a sporting event, if she continues to allow herself to be bullied into voting as she's told even when she is told to vote for candidates who don't represent her best interests.

[ProSense]

51. But

"This is an anonymous message board. You don't know enough about me to make that kind of judgement. It's false."

...you know enough about other people to judge them?

"It feels like shit to be a minority in a nation of people willing to roll over out of fear, willing to consume propaganda wholesale to make themselves feel more secure."

Now this:

"This country is never going to make significant progress if she continues to allow corporate control of government, regardless of the party in power, if she continues to allow the erosion of progress previous generations gained, if she continues to treat politics like a sporting event, if she continues to allow herself to be bullied into voting as she's told even when she is told to vote for candidates who don't represent her best interests."

Regardless of the rhetoric, in this country, at this time, a Democrat or a Republican is going to become the next President. That's the choice, that's the reality. You can write in your cat as you indicated in another comment, but that's not going to change the reality of the outcome.

So by all means vote for your cat or one of a dozen other Democrats.

It's also funny that you say "regardless of the party in power," agina implying that there is no difference. Tell me, those one dozen better Democrats you claim you'd vote for belong to which party?

[LWolf]

61. Who am I judging?

The people who tell me that they will vote out of fear. The people that repeat propaganda to me as if it carries weight.

When they tell me that, I obviously know enough to judge them on that action. :eyes:

You are correct about one thing: it will be a Republican or a Democrat. I don't have to help elect either if I think they are unworthy; hence the cat. Or, more likely, the better Democrat. When I write in a better Democrat, I know I won't see that person elected. At that point, though, there's no chance that I'll see anyone I want elected in that office.

I think that electing neo-liberal Democrats is bad for the party and the nation. I think I enable the further degradation of the party and the nation when I vote for a neo-liberal Democrat. So I won't. Voting for a Republican has never been a possibility; I haven't voted for a Republican in my 51 years of life, and unless they suddenly become a left-wing, socialist stronghold, which is highly unlikely, to say the least, I will go to my grave without having EVER cast a vote for a Republican.

Democrats, though, can earn my vote anytime that they want to.

Some of them do, regularly.

[Atticus]

33. EXACTLY! nt

[MrTriumph]

34. Will the WH berate the "professional left" again? If so, it just shows more bad leadership skills.

x

[Pirate Smile]

37. kick

[DerekG]

40. Yeah, it's like Batman vs. the Joker

Only in this case, Batman invites the Joker into the Batcave in order to strike a deal over how many people the clown can murder.

Christopher Nolan's making the movie now. It's called "The Dark Knight Blunders."

[LWolf]

49. +1

[woo me with science]

50. No.

Continuing Bushco. policies is not good.

Neither is using SS and Medicare as bargaining chips.

It's pretty damned close to evil, actually.

[blkmusclmachine]

52. When our so-called "Democrats" call giving 98% to the Teabaggers "a win,"

DOES IT REALLY MATTER ANYMORE??

[Pirate Smile]

53. Yeah, it does. You are who that entire column was aimed at. Read the whole thing at the link.

[Tarheel_Dem]

55. And it's having someone in the WH, ready with the veto pen, when the nutbaggers...

pass more & more draconian legislation. Unfortunately, that's about the best we can hope for, especially if the GOP takes back the Senate as well.

[Pirate Smile]

56. As you can tell from reading this thread, you have a bunch of people here that don't even think it

matters - which is amazing because people should know better on a political discussion board.

Who cares if a Republican President gets to pick the next Supreme Court Justices? No dif.

It.is.Amazing.

Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face. :eyes:

[Tarheel_Dem]

57. Lots of passionate dabblers in the discussion these days. Do they even teach civics...

in the classroom anymore? :shrug:

[MadHound]

59. Yes, it is about the lesser of two evils

Just as it has been for the past thirty plus years.

[flamingdem]

62. Let's hope the American people know the difference by now nt