I fear the President is taking a big part of his Party for granted.

[kentuck]

Namely, the more progressives in the Party. They are worried sick that this President will surrender Medicare, Social Security, and everything dear to Democrats, to these radical Republicans now in power in the House.

It seems he cannot bring himself to tell this Republican Congress, "Go ahead, make my day!" They have his number and they believe he will fold every time if they threaten to shut down the government or not pass the debt ceiling bill, or whatever.

If this President wants another term, he is taking a bigger gamble with his own Party than with the threats of the Republicans. He is about to lose them, if he hasn't lost them already. He cannot win without these progressive Democrats.

He seems to believe the only thing that matters is jobs and the economy. If the economy is doing well, it doesn't matter what he surrenders to the Republicans, he seems to think? He is staking his re-election on the hope that the unemployment rate will be much lower this time next year. But it is more than that.

Bernie Sanders and Henry Waxman have spoken to the President. Is he listening? At the rate this President is going, he is more of a threat to the Democratic Party than a Republican President, because he acts like a Republican. At best, he acts like a President that is willing to surrender everything Democrats have fought for, without as much as a murmur or even a kind word to his supporters. They are very worried about this President.

He needs to become an active, involved President. He needs to be on the front line leading our Party against this assault. It's fine and dandy that he is visiting manufacturing plants that show new jobs are being created but he is fiddling while his Party burns. He is too complacent in his position. A second term is not guaranteed.

.

[vi5]

1. Why should he not take us for granted?

He knows the suckers will line up to vote for him no matter what. What are we gonna do? Vote for the other guy? Hahahahaha.

He knows exactly what he's doing.

And sadly I count myself among the suckers.

[roguevalley]

13. axelrod said three times in one interview that the alternative to obama

is one of them and worse. they know they have us over a barrel. they don't care. the contempt they feel is real.

[rhett o rick]

64. He needs the right of center "New Democrats" more than he needs us. nm

[FarLeftFist]

2. The stage is set

For the battle of our lifetime. This is it people, and it's all in Obama's hands. We are about to witness history in the making....Again.

[pnwmom]

3. And I fear a lot of Democrats are taking Obama for granted.

They'll wish they hadn't under the next Rethug administration.

[Tx4obama]

6. I fear a lot of Democrats are taking Obama for granted. (is what I was going to say). n/t

[dennis4868]

27. yep...

he is by far the most progressive US president in 60 years and has done so much for the cause....coming to DU you would not know it but this is a very negative looking place to be....

[yardwork]

51. How is Obama the most progressive president in 60 years?

More progressive than Jimmy Carter? More progressive than LBJ? Than JFK?

[Name removed]

54. Deleted message

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

[dionysus]

74. you're projecting, hard. thanks for the chuckles.

:rofl:

[Tesha]

97. I'm sorry, but I view *ANY ONE* of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the creation of Medicare, Medicaid,

...and the EPA and CAFE standards far more positively than
I view *EVERYTHING* that the Obama administration has done.

To call him the "most progressive US president in 60 years"
seems to me to be ignoring a lot of recent history.

Tesha

[Donnachaidh]

7. damn - -- beating that dead horse should become en Olympic Event

It's sadly the only thing some have left.... :eyes:

[Arctic Dave]

11. The old, "at least were going to hell in a handbag slower now" argument.

Way to rally the troops! Fuck yeah!

[mitchtv]

37. Obama is taking lots of Dems for granted ,too

he'll wish he hadn't on election day

[Lorien]

57. How have the lives of the Middle class and working poor (not to mention homeless)

improved under Obama?

[graywarrior]

94. !

:toast:

[Kaleva]

4. If Obama and McCain had split the moderate vote 50/50, then McCain would have won.

Obama got 60% of the moderate vote and a surprising 20% of the conservate vote.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#USP00p1

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

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

[Donnachaidh]

8. dead horse meet stick

wonder how big the chorus will get on this thread? :sarcasm:

:rofl: :rofl:

[emulatorloo]

16. Take you blinders off sometime and look at the states currently under Republican rule

In my state Republican control everything but the Senate. And the Democrats stop every vile woman-hating, union-hating, gay-bashing legislation in it's tracks.

The dead horse is "they are all the same.". Very fun to post that, but it has nothing to do with lived reality.

[Andy823]

20. Yeah...

All those "doom and gloom", and down with Obama threads are so much better, and in the long run I am sure the right wing government we get "IF" people don't vote will be so much better, right? :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm:

Give me a break!

[kentuck]

9. Bernie Sanders and Henry Waxman are not just talking ....

to hear themselves talk, I don't think.

This President has problems. And if he surrenders Medicare and Social Security and everything Democrats have fought for, he has no claim to call himself a Democrat or to ask for support from the progressives in his Party. They are watching what he does, not what he says. Blind loyalty does not pay the bills.

These are serious people. They are not criticizing the President just to be critical, I don't believe?

[JuniperLea]

33. It's really lame to continue in this mode of...

"He plans on" or "he intends to" or "if he does this that or the other." It's damn stupid, counter productive, and just plain wrong... it's catapulting the fucking propaganda for the other side.

You'd be just fine if Obama spent all his time parading in front of a news camera and giving you blow by blow details of the few things he'd be able to get done whilst wasting all that time parading.

He's not a parader, or a self promoter... he's a worker and he's working damn hard... and he's being ignored. Instead of talking about all the good he's managed to do, too many are stuck worrying about "He plans on" or "he intends to" or "if he does this that or the other." It's damn stupid... damn fucking stupid.

[kentuck]

38. I think Bernie Sanders and Henry Waxman are not stupid.

In fact, I think they may be smarter than you?

[JuniperLea]

39. I think they have their reasons for everything they say...

As for who might be smarter, I don't know and I don't see the relevance. Do you know what their IQ's are? Mine is 175... in the top 2% of the population. What's yours?

[kentuck]

40. Mine is 210.

It's so high it can't be measured. You lose.

[JuniperLea]

41. Got proof?

I do.

[Name removed]

44. Deleted sub-thread

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

[tkmorris]

61. An IQ of 175 puts you in the top .0002% of the population actually

Such would be a singular event. Yours would be the kind of mind that gets celebrated as a true gift to mankind. A once in a generation (though it isn't really, just close) circumstance. I would expect someone with an IQ rivaling Einstein to know that.

You don't. Thou art a braggart, and a charlatan.

[JuniperLea]

87. bovine excrement...

I can prove it easily enough...





Edited for the current card... because someone would no doubt come along and say something about my IQ having expired. :eyes:

[tkmorris]

99. There is a HUGE, we're talking GARGANTUAN...

difference between qualifying for Mensa and having a 175 IQ. Mensa membership requires about a 131 IQ. About 1 in 100 can boast of a 131+ IQ. About 1 in 500,000 can boast of a 175. Are you seeing the difference here?

I also am a Mensa member. Or was. I let it lapse because really, what is it good for? Flaunting it at stupid people? Pretty gauche, don't you think?

[JuniperLea]

98. And you were saying...

What was that? I can't hear you. 'Scuse me? Say again?

[AlabamaLibrul]

62. The last "if he does this that or the other" discussion we had was on a Public Option.

Remember that?

"Any plan I sign must include an insurance exchange: a one-stop shopping marketplace where you can compare the benefits, cost and track records of a variety of plans - including a public option to increase competition and keep insurance companies honest - and choose what's best for your family."

Demanding the public option until he wasn't.

So it's not like there isn't precedent here, for discussing what ifs, what if the President sells us out again...

edit:fixed formatting

[JuniperLea]

88. i hope you caught his speech today...

and that it didn't cause you too much pain.

[AlabamaLibrul]

91. Sadly I missed the speech. I take it you have no response to my point about the PO. n/t

[JuniperLea]

92. The speech content was my answer...

You should do yourself a favor and find the video... it could save you from stepping in something.

[Andy823]

23. +1,000,000,000

Of course there are some posters here who's job it is to trash the president, post "doom and gloom" and advocate either NOT voting for Obama, or voting for some write in to make their point!

If republicans get control of the WH, keep the house, and make gains in the senate, even the right wing morons that "THINK" things are so bad now are going to come to a rude awakening when they lose everything they have, jobs, homes, insurance etc. because the right wants to privatize this whole country and pay slave wages to all their workers, no matter what party they are in! The goal is for a two tier system, the rich at the top, and everybody else at the bottom! To bad so many of the brain dead right wing base will never get it till it's to late for them!

[StarsInHerHair]

53. what is Obama doing to stop this 2 tier system?

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

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

[Lionessa]

I don't fear it, I KNOW it, and I'm definitely cranky about it.

[Zen Democrat]

10. I fear that Democrats will chase tails and end up with a Republican, like 1980.

I fear that Democrats will throw the baby out with the bath water.

I fear that Democrats will not realize that we have a HUGE tent containing a broad range of opinions.

I fear that Democrats will not work their asses off to elect a GOVERNING majority in the House and Senate, so President Obama has the power to make the changes we need.

Electing a Democratic President without a significant majority EXCLUDING Blue Dogs, well what do you expect? And what is, has been worlds better than McCain, Palin, Romney, Pawlenty, Bachmann, Perry, Fat Bastard, Santorum, et al.

[kentuck]

12. What do you think would be a "governing" majority?

Just out of curiosity?

[JoePhilly]

22. I'll bite ... and I will keep it simple ... and focus only on the Senate ...

Obama had a 60 vote majority in the Senate for all of 6 months.

From Jan 2009, to about June 2009, the GOP blocked the seating of Al Franken. This ensured that we could not get 60 votes on anything without a GOP cross over. If you need a GOP cross over, you don;t have a "governing" majority.

After Franken was seated, the Dems had a 60 vote Senate for 6 months ... until Kennedy died.

So, at best, Obama had a "governing majority" during those six months.

Except ... the blue Dogs. About 6 of them. But let's forget them for this discussion.

Let's focus on ONE ... Joe Lieberman. You know Joe ... he campaigned AGAINST Obama. So even when we had 60, we did not have 60.

The GOP 40 said NO ... No, we will not support ANYTHING Obama does. Nothing.

And with Lieberman, they can stop anything at all ... and that is before we talk about Ben Nelson, or any other bluedog.

[vi5]

25. Even if that is all true....

..and I'll concede that some of it is.....

Then why has Obama and Reid or any other prominent Democrat talked at length about how broken the Senate is? Why have they in speech after speech and interview after interview and press conference after press conference done exactly what the Republicans and Bush did when they had a much slimmer majority which is to complain and yell and scream and hammer home "Up or down vote!!" How many times did we hear them from Bush and from Lott and everyone else in the Republican party during the years where the majority was slimmer. How many times have we heard it from our leaders (and not just from excuse makers on message boards)?

The answer is barely at all. Because they're content to just sit back, not rock the boat, and then just shrug their shoulders and say "Well, that's all we can do. Darn Senate just won't pass anything without 60 votes.

That's a lot of people's issue, including myself. It's not that the Repubs aren't obstructionist assholes. We know that they are. It's that the amount of outright fighting fire with fire has been non-existent. They hammer Obama and Reid, and all Obama and Reid can do is deplore "the tone" in washington and urge bipartisan cooperation. I'm sorry that's just not enough. And it's obvious with how little has gotten accomplished that it's not enough.

[JoePhilly]

26. First ... all of it is true ...

Second, sure ... Reid can jump up and down, and so could Obama ... my question to you is ... would that work?

Would Republicans feel shame? Do they ever?

As for how little they accomplish, we'll have to agree to disagree. Obama has done more in 2.5 years than most do in 4.

Sadly, many on the left don't want a President who represents all of America, they want their own Bush, a President who only represents his party.

[vi5]

45. I want a president who represents the majority....

And time after time no matter what the polling shows on public opinion he doesn't follow. Whether it was on healthcare, whether it was on financial reform whether it's on wars, whether it's on raising taxes for the wealthy or whatever. He is more concerned with what the press and media are saying than what most opinion polls show. I'm not saying he has to make those his be all and end all. But the fact is that when your party traditionally believes in something, and polls show that when framed accurately a majority of the public AGREES with those positions, and then he goes and takes something other than that position then I'm sorry that is something I'm not going to be happy about or cheer about.

And yes, I want him to represent his party more than he represents the other party.

For all the talk of the liberals and leftists living in some sort of Utopian fairy land, it's the practical, sensible centrists who seem to want to believe we are in some sort of la la land where politics is not a zero sum game. But it is, whether any of us like it or not.

I'm glad you're happy with leaders who have aided this ridiculous rightward shift in our country and a drastic shifting of this country's prosperity and wealth to a select few. No, Obama didn't start that but he's brought into Republican solutions and Republican framing for it.

[JoePhilly]

85. The founders of this country did not base decisions on polls for a reason.

That is why the founders distributed the government's powers.

You claim that Obama is following the media. Actually, it seems that YOU are following the media, each time you cling to a poll.

Who do you think does the polling??

Votes matter.

So let's take an issue ... Obama as a candidate said he planned to ADD troops to Afghanistan. He won, and he added troops.

Said he'd kill OBL as a candidate ... He won ... and killed OBL.

On Healthcare ... try this ... explain to me how Obama get Joe Lieberman to vote YES (let's skip all the other blue dogs). Lieberman campaigned AGAINST Obama ... but Obama was supposed to get Lieberman to vote yes ... spare me.

I could go on and on ...

Polls are not VOTES. And to pass legislation, you need VOTES.

[dionysus]

75. this simple truth is purposefully ignored here. funny how the people who liked to use the "messiah"

smear, then proceed to falsely act like he has the powers of a king or dictator.

congress never gets the blame. unless something gets passed, then they get all the credit.

most of it really boils down to 3 year old sour grapes, it really does.

[JoePhilly]

86. I always mocked the far right when they claimed that the left saw Obama

as the "Messiah".

It has become clear to me that some on the left absolutely saw him as a Messianic figure.

[JI7]

15. i don't really consider them democrats

there have always been a group that turns up every election that spend most of the time bashing the candidate in our party.

the first time i was able to vote in a presidential election was Gore's run in 2000 and i was worried then but now i realize many of these people want our candidate to lose.

rarely do they speak of a specific issue and how to get support for it and what can be done. usually they are not informed either.

[TheKentuckian]

29. Please. Liberals work campaigns "sensible centrists" figure out ways to morph the party into

yesterday's Republicans, punch hippies, push failed Republican rehash, and invent new ways to turn over the country to corporate interest.

Partisan dimwits without principles and "Moral Majority" sensibilities.

[JI7]

36. what are you talking about ?

i didn't say anything about liberals or centrists.

of course most liberals work the campaigns , and a large majority of them approve of the president.

there is another group that wants democrats to lose by claiming to be something they aren't and constantly being negative about the candidate.

[vi5]

24. "Excluding Blue Dogs"

If they aren't to be considered as part of our GOVERNING MAJORITY then we should work to oust them. There are just not enough additional seats to be had or picked up while at the same time leaving those clowns in place.

And if they can't be counted on to support how we and the president (hahaha supposedly) want to govern then he and the Democratic leadership should, if not work to support primary challengers then at the very least stay out of it.

It can't be both ways. We can't hear that we need to be sensitive the precious feelings of the Blue Dogs and shouldn't drive them from office with primary challenges, but then at the same time be told that we can't count them as part of our governing majority.

The fact is they are very useful as cover for people like the President and Harry Reid. They don't at all want to see them gone. They want them right where they are and voting and governing right how they are doing so already. Anyone that believes otherwise is naive.

[xphile]

49. A "governing" majority? We had that and it was blown.

And a good reason for that was because Obama refused to drag certain DINOs in damn line. He's quick to attack progressives though.

[RKP5637]

14. I agree with you. I've been around for a lot of elections, but I've never

been as concerned as the potential outcome of 2012, because IMO that will be the ultimate tipping point. I will vote for Obama, because I think he's our best hope, but I wish he would address the entire democratic party. I agree with the things Bernie Sanders said. I think if Obama drove a stake in the ground, said this is what we are and included the whole party he would win in a landslide in 2012. I've really never felt so disconnected ... and I think of myself as pretty much a moderate democrat.

[tularetom]

17. He sure as hell is taking me for granted but I'll still vote for him

He's a lot less than I expected he would be and he shows no signs of having listened to or learned anything from the base that worked their asses off to get him elected.

In fact he's now on the verge of supplanting Clinton as the best republican president we ever had.

And if he thinks the republicans will applaud him for trashing SS and Medicare to save the debt limit, he's in dream land. They will beat him over the head and shoulders with it for the next year and a half and constantly remind the public that Obama took away your social security and medicare. If I can see it coming, how come a smart guy lie him can't?

[jaxx]

18. I fear I've heard this all before.

Daily.
Many times.
Too many times.
I fear this is the usual projection..."Hey look at meeeeee".
Sanders and Waxman don't have his job, they send letters and vote on stuff the pubs put out there.
This President is very active and involved. The need for some to have him spouting bushisms daily are suspect...if he does he's butting in, if he doesn't he's surrendering.
I'm tired of listening to the constant complaining, the constant making up scenarios to get another anti-Obama thread going. The President has surrendered nothing...nothing. But all the angst demands that he surrender something so that those who insist they are being taken for granted will have, finally, something to complain about. Oh woe is me. Will people be happy then?

[dennis4868]

30. great post....

you are in DU so you may get clobbered by the IRRATIONAL OBAMA HATERS....Thanks god Bernie Sanders did not get his way during the budget battle last december and thenk the good lord he is not president....it's getting very depressing coming here these days....DUers are just hoping we have a repub in the WH so they can bitch even more than they do now...that's what fake liberals do.

[EFerrari]

35. Obama's idea of negotiation is to give the other side everything

and then ask them if they like it.

That's not projection, that's what he does.

[mod mom]

76. and then offer up more.

:mad: I will be spending more time with my family this coming election, unless we get some good progressives running down ticket. After what happened to Jennifer Brunner (former SOS), my guess is the ODP will weed them out.

[JuniperLea]

42. Well said!

It's pathetic that some would rather Obama spent less time actually getting things done so he can parade in front of news cameras with bravado as he pats himself on the back.

I'd rather he keep spending all that time doing actual work instead of bloviating about it... glad to see I'm not alone.

[dionysus]

70. no shit. the same exact post, with minor variations... day, after day, after day, after day...

[DJ13]

19. If the economy is doing well, it doesn't matter what he surrenders to the Republicans

I believe you're right, and thats likely what Obama is thinking, but its not a rational idea on his part.

There have been several countries heading down the same path, and not a single one has improved their economy with austerity measures.

That actually damages economies, you cant improve the jobs situation by reducing spending, it doesnt work.

I dont know who is in the WH advising Obama, but whoever it is doesnt know his/her ass from a hole in the ground.

[StarsInHerHair]

55. I'm glad someone else has noticed this

[Rex]

21. Well they most certainly did and lost big in 2010, I doubt they learned

a single lesson from their collective stupidity. Bad mouth your base right before an election = loser of many seats.

[elocs]

31. Well, the next President will either be Obama or the Republican candidate.

Living in Wisconsin and seeing what the Republicans do when they take power (given the Senate seats up in 2012 they have a good chance of taking the Senate and holding the House) I don't want the Republican, any Republican as my President.

Last November here in Wisconsin a lot of Democrats were in a snit about Obama or Congress and so they chose to stay home from the polls. The Republicans chose to vote. As a result we got Walker and his heavy-handed minions and lost Russ Feingold as a Senator.

Choices have consequences. Choosing not to vote for Democratic candidates has consequences. You don't have to tell me about this because, as I said, I live in Wisconsin.

[EFerrari]

34. Actually, Democrats didn't stay home. Independents voted Republican.

So no, you can't blame Democrats.

[deacon]

65. The million dollar answer. Thats why he plays the cards he does. n/t

[JuniperLea]

32. He is active, he is involved, he is working like crazy, and has accomplished more...

In this short time than anyone could have imagined.

What he doesn't do is constantly parade before the media and pat himself on the back. THAT is the only thing missing, or rather, that some people are missing.

I don't need to see him on the news every day... I'm glad he's taking care of business instead of taking care of his image.

I'm pretty fed up with this whole line of thinking. And I know I'm far from alone in this.

[Shagbark Hickory]

43. The progressives didn't elect him. Independent consv swing voters in key swing states elected him.

[vi5]

46. Good.

Then he can ask them for money and help and support and phone banking and voter registration.

[Shagbark Hickory]

48. The corps got his back now. He's covered.

[Lorien]

56. Bullshit. It was our feet that were on the ground

going door to door for him. He doesn't want us as volunteers? Fine; his corporate cronies can hit the streets for him.

[NorthCarolina]

47. How do you know that he isn't simply in agreement with Republicans on entitlements? nt

[dionysus]

73. If i had a dollar for everytime it was breathlessly declared he was going to gut SS and it turned

out to be bullshit, i'd be rich.

[EndElectoral]

50. Some feel progressives will vote Dem automatically. Ignore them and they simply won't vote.

The argument is look at the alternative (Rethugs) just gets tiring. I don't go into a booth to vote against an alternative. I vote for the person who best repesents my values, and if there is no candidate speaking for me, I vote 3rd party or write in or not at all. Fortunately, I've voted Democratic in every election. Sometimes I've been dissapointed (ie Clinton and NAFTA among other things, but I do feel Barrack Obama is not pushing back hard enough. The Bush tax cut cave was the worst. Will the debt ceiling be a replay of that? We'll see. But to assume progressives will simply vote Dem because there's nowhere else to go is a strategic mistake.

[BzaDem]

60. Ultimately, you will go into the voting booth and vote against the alternative. It may not be in

2012, but if not then it will certainly be in 2016. Just like how most Nader voters regretted their actions and did not repeat their tantrum in 2004, people who play with fire in 2012 will similarly get burned (in a way they will never forget), just like a child who touches a hot stove is unlikely to repeat such an action in the future. Humans have evolved to not be consistently irrational for long periods of time, and this is certainly true in the political context.

[DearAbby]

52. The very fact people...progressives are wondering

WILL THEY CAVE this time. It's not like it's never happened before. Hell no, the Democrats haven't missed an opportunity to stand up for party values....right. To date they seem to wait, KEEP THEIR POWDER DRY, fight another day eh? The very fact there are people in the Democratic party even CONSIDERING this, is because its happened before, THEY CAVE. So doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results is what my friends?

Granted, I certainly don't want the alternative, but I would MUCH rather have Party leaders who stand up for BASIC DEMOCRATIC BELIEFS and not have to wonder if they will CAVE. And if they CAVE-HOW MUCH?

[JoeyT]

58. You seem upset by the President.

Perhaps a picture of Him with His shirt off at the beach will help to convince you of the error of your ways.

[woo me with science]

68. ROFL!

:rofl:

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

82. .

:spray:

[BzaDem]

59. Is it really the President's fault that people are worried over things that haven't happened?

For the 13% or so of the base that disapproves of Obama, I don't think there is ANYTHING Obama could do at would put their concerns at ease.

Ultimately, all presidents disappoint some of their respective bases, since there are always a small portion of both sides that will never be satisfied with anyone their party successfully elects. (This was certainly true of Reagan and the Republican base at the time.) But the concerns you have are of things Obama might do, that haven't even happened. The same concerns were spread over and over again before the government shutdown fight, but ultimately most concede Obama took the Republicans for a ride there.

Why not wait to see what happens (or to at least wait to see if any reports substantiate your claims)? I have seen no reports that SS will be touched at all, and to the extent Medicare will be touched, it would be on the provider side (just like in HCR), not the benefits side.

I'm not saying there aren't valid criticisms of Obama, or that the ultimate debt deal wont be too far to the right. Because of the 2010 elections, we have divided government, so this is to be expected. But it is a little odd to assume Obama will surrender SS and Medicare before any evidence comes out to merit such a concern.

[Recursion]

67. Look at the FR criticism of GWB: much harsher even than ours of Obama

They call him a sell-out, spineless, a secret liberal, etc.

[dionysus]

71. thats basically what DUers say; "They call him a sell-out, spineless, a secret republican, etc."

[tridim]

79. GWB deserved the criticism because he is the worst president in American history

The fact that you can't see the difference is very suspect.

[Recursion]

81. Your concern is duly noted

:eyes:

Activists always feel sold out by politicians, because politicians can never move the country as far as we want them to.

[Ice Number Nine]

96. they like to throw a fit ahead of time because Obama so often disappoints them by not failing

[Nossida]

63. Now more than ever

Perhaps this is true.

But I'd stick with the President
over the alternative any day.

Better to know where you stand with President Obama,
than to trust the Republic to reactionary riff raff.
The republicans will stop at nothing short of a
Theocratic Dictatorship.

[Recursion]

66. Which is exactly how conservatives felt about W

Activists always feel this way. It's why we're activists.

[dionysus]

69. another day, and the campaign against obama slogs on...

:eyes:

[Pisces]

72. Funny since he is our Democraic candidate for 2012 that this continues. Maybe some want him to lose?

[dionysus]

77. of course they want him to lose. it's a sense of revenge for some. revenge for being elected in the

first place.

[indepat]

78. If the President requires the massive tax breaks to the uber-wealthy and large corporations to be

paid for by reduced social security and Medicare benefits, he will never again get this bunny's vote. :patriot:

[VeryConfused]

80. I wouldn't call that part of the party big

nor would I say they are very supportive of the party. The reality is this is the part that doesn't really support the party but demands every politician sacrifice their careers to meet their demands.

[ileus]

83. Why not take us for granted....who else are we gonna vote for? Palin???

[joeybee12]

84. Not just us, he's taking the Dems in Congress for granted...

Waxman is probably expressing what most are feeling.

[Name removed]

90. Deleted message

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

[joeybee12]

93. Well, since it's clear I'll only have a choice of two repukelicans in 2012...

I'm still deciding...thanks for your concern.

[CakeGrrl]

89. This again?

Anyhoo, talk to your compatriots who say it's ALL about the economy and if the jobs aren't there, he's done.

And where are the Progressive Democrats going? I haven't heard any developments on the primary challenge front. Who's the frontrunner?

[Ice Number Nine]

95. 80% of Liberal Democrats support Obama

and there are also Moderates and Conservatives in this Party, too.

So, are you trying to claim that less than a fifth of the Far Left is equal to "a big part of the Party"???