Skip to main content

View Diary: POTUS and Rep. Pelosi Announce Plans to Win Back the House (317 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Of course not. (38+ / 0-)

    Good for her demanding that the president gives her "explicit" answers before she votes for the Democrats.
    Clearly she thinks she has a choice.
    You know, give me explicit answers or else.
    For me, I really could care less what the president says at this point.
    I have no choice. I vote for Democrats because I do not want the Republicans running this country.
    The rest of it we'll work out along the way.

    Maya Angelou: "Without courage, we cannot practice any other virtue with consistency. We can't be kind, true, merciful, generous, or honest."

    by JoanMar on Fri Jun 07, 2013 at 06:06:52 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  So, basically what you are saying is the choices (10+ / 0-)

      are divided in two:

      1. Republicans; or

      2. Democrats who won't actually tell you what they intend to do.

      Is that really a reasonable choice?

      •  We need better Democrats n/t (11+ / 0-)

        "If you can't take their money, eat their food, drink their booze and then vote against them, you have no business being in DC."

        by Betty Pinson on Fri Jun 07, 2013 at 07:03:49 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Nope. It's not. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        3goldens

        Sadly though, it's the choice you are given.

        If Liberals hated America, we'd vote Republican.

        by ord avg guy on Fri Jun 07, 2013 at 08:15:09 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Why exactly is that? (0+ / 0-)

          There are a lot of people in this world to choose from.  Plenty right here in this country.

          Tens of thousands on this site alone who would be inclined to not only be honest about their intentions, but also inclined to offer up policy proposals that would be much more common sense than those ideas that are currently being floated by both crazy Republicans and the ideological right/centrist part of the Democratic Party.

          Honestly, I have come to think that the so-called Democratic "pragmatists" are not only deceitful, but also dogmatic and lacking imagination.  I aspire to to better.  I expect nothing less of political leaders.  I have more respect for Dick Cheney than many of the mealy-mouthed Democrats in power these days because he, at least, believed in what he was doing - crazy, wrong, evil, but aspirational and committed he was.  He is the antithesis of the Founding Fathers, Martin Luther King and other important leaders who chose to use their powers for GOOD, but no less determined.  What we have on our hands now in the Democratic Party is a majority of calculated, contrived fools who blow with the wind and have no staying power when the going gets tough.  That's the kind of thing that sinks ships.  Just ask my relative President James Buchanan about how trying to play all of the angles and not moving forward in any productive direction can get you into big, serious trouble.

          •  Ok... (0+ / 0-)

            but you live in a country with 150,000,000+ voters.

            In Utopiaville you can elect the people who do not need to compromise. You can elect people who commit to something during a campaign and then enact it after the election through will and force of character. In Utopiaville the simple majority influences outcomes without resistance, unless the majority is "wrong", in which case it doesn't happen and everyone learns a lesson. Sadly though, we live in America.

            Call it "pragmatism", in that sneering way you use for Democrats and Tea Party faithful use for mainstream Republicans. I call it reality.

            If Liberals hated America, we'd vote Republican.

            by ord avg guy on Sun Jun 09, 2013 at 11:43:08 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  and that is (11+ / 0-)

      why we get such crappy Democrats and why there is no pressure to move the discussion to the left.  There is no consequences to the democrats for moving to the right to chase the squishy 'middle'.

      We Glory in war, in the shedding of human blood. What fools we are.

      by delver rootnose on Fri Jun 07, 2013 at 07:01:55 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Fear the Elephant! booga booga! (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Medium Head Boy

        Obama: self-described Republican; backed up by right-wing policies

        by The Dead Man on Fri Jun 07, 2013 at 08:12:22 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Well, it works. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          samddobermann

          Step 1: Someone writes a highly misleading diary with a selective use of facts. Step 2: Someone else writes a highly misleading diary to counter the first diary with a selective use of facts. Step 3: Someone says Obama is worse than Hitler. Repeat.

          by NoFortunateSon on Fri Jun 07, 2013 at 08:38:12 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  You don't think we should? (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Onomastic, Gordon20024, OIL GUY, aitchdee

          Maya Angelou: "Without courage, we cannot practice any other virtue with consistency. We can't be kind, true, merciful, generous, or honest."

          by JoanMar on Fri Jun 07, 2013 at 08:52:35 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Anyone who is not afraid of Republicans (16+ / 0-)

            hasn't been paying attention.

            Their scorched earth policy should be visible from space. :(

            "Compassion is not weakness, and concern for the unfortunate is not socialism." Hubert H. Humphrey

            by Onomastic on Fri Jun 07, 2013 at 08:56:31 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  You know you are right, Ono. (6+ / 0-)

              Maya Angelou: "Without courage, we cannot practice any other virtue with consistency. We can't be kind, true, merciful, generous, or honest."

              by JoanMar on Fri Jun 07, 2013 at 09:02:08 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  But anyone who isn't afraid of Democrats (4+ / 0-)

              hasn't been paying attention, either.

              Democrats (in general, as in our party platform) are mostly right on social issues, but that's the only advantage.

              Makes it hard to enthusiastically vote Democrat. There aren't any real Democrats left anymore. Fuck labor, fuck the environment, fuck wealth distribution; none of that matters. As long as they are right one LGBT rights (when it doesn't cost anything) and women's rights (half of the time), we'll keep voting for them and keep getting a smaller paycheck.

              I don't know how y'all stay optimistic. It's pretty fucking clear that the deck is stacked against us.

              P.S. I am not a crackpot.

              by BoiseBlue on Fri Jun 07, 2013 at 09:12:46 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Optimistic!? (2+ / 0-)

                I think you're confusing my refusal to curl up in a little ball and give up because I'd never be able to look my grand babies in the face again, with something else.

                "Compassion is not weakness, and concern for the unfortunate is not socialism." Hubert H. Humphrey

                by Onomastic on Fri Jun 07, 2013 at 09:41:22 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  Well, we have primaries AND third paries (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                sidnora, Onomastic

                First try campaigning in and voting in primaries.  This has worked in the past.

                If that fails...there are a lot of other third party candidates to vote for if a really awful "Democratic" candidate like Feinstein wins the nomination in your district.

                Bernie Sanders isn't a Democrat, and he ran against Democrats when he first ran.

                Remember, just because the Whigs and Democrats were the "only serious parties" in 1860 didn't stop people from voting for Lincoln.

                I think there are still many worthy Democrats (Wyden & Udall come to mind this week) and I'd vote for them in an instant.  There are others you should simply not vote for.  

                The two-party system -- resulting from Duverger's Law -- sucks, but it doesn't require that the SAME two parties survive.  We know this from 1860.  

                The Republican Party is on the ropes in many districts.  Running against Dan Maffei recently, Ann-Marie Buerkle got barely more than a random independent environmentalist candidate.  (Each got about a quarter of the vote; Maffei got 51%.)  

                We're getting very very close to a national realignment.  Don't be afraid of voting third-party when a Democratic candidate (who didn't face a primary) sucks; the third-party candidate may actually have a better chance of winning than the Democrat.

                If there isn't a third party candidate and there wasn't a primary challenge, then you may have to vote for a terrible Democrat.  

                But in that case, ask yourself, why wasn't there a primary?  And what can you do about that?  If the reason was something related to suppression or corruption by the party establishment, then you may have to go third-party in your district; otherwise, organize a primary challenger.

                •  yea but you can't even suggest supporting ... (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  The Dead Man

                  ...third parties here without the risk of banning.

                  We Glory in war, in the shedding of human blood. What fools we are.

                  by delver rootnose on Fri Jun 07, 2013 at 10:34:35 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  I'd be very careful with voting third party. (4+ / 0-)

                  In Maine we too have third parties.

                  During the last gubernatorial race in 2010 we had five candidates running. Three were third party candidates. Of those three, only one was a serious challenge to either the Republican or Democratic candidates.

                  Because the third party candidate and Democrat split the Independent and Democratic vote, we're now blessed with the nightmare that is our current Tea Party Republican Governor.

                  I doubt any third party candidate will be getting serious votes again for a long time because of that.

                  Oh, and by the way, I don't think you're allowed to advocate for third party candidates here.

                  "Compassion is not weakness, and concern for the unfortunate is not socialism." Hubert H. Humphrey

                  by Onomastic on Fri Jun 07, 2013 at 10:41:51 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  The problem is first-past-the-post elections (0+ / 0-)

                    which are subject to Duverger's Law.

                    The thing is, if the party realignment doesn't happen due to people mindlessly voting "Republican" and "Democrat" even when they detest both candidates, the next most likely possibility is civil war, which is not a good option.  Heck, the last party realignment, there was a civil war anyway

                •  One of the few (2+ / 0-)

                  intelligent comments re third-party strategy I have ever seen on this site (trans: I agree!).

                  Most others are either wishful belief that having a robust third party would be the cure for all our electoral ills (with no details about how such a robust third party would come into being), or else inveighing against the existence of third parties. I think that third parties (on the left) siphon off progressive energies that would be better used to push the Democratic Party further left from the inside, as they were in  the 60s when the party was way to the left of where it is today, but I recognize that my personal opinion isn't going to stop third parties from coming into being.

                  I've written more comments here explaining the mechanism you describe as Duverger's Law than I could count (though I didn't know it has a name, thanks for that). I've also thought for a long time that a major-party realignment is overdue, but clearly I underestimated the level of right-wing crazy the nation is capable of tolerating (and the determination of the corpocracy to buy the government at any price). At this point I fear that long-hoped-for change will only come about after serious civil violence, which I dread.

                  Lastly, because you are new here, I would point out that advocating for third parties is considered a bannable offense here. Be careful; I'd like to see more of you here.

                  "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself."........ "The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." (yeah, same guy.)

                  by sidnora on Sat Jun 08, 2013 at 03:21:01 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

          •  I think fear is an inappropriate response (0+ / 0-)

            It's the panicked emotional response that if depended upon to advance the goals of the oligarchy -- by making any person wearing the "D" palatable by virtue of how awful the Republicans are.  It's a beautiful way to present people with false choices and give them the illusion that Their Vote Matters™ and the person they are voting for will not be as harmful as the Republican beast.

            As these leaks are showing, Obama is a beast on his own continuing and strengthening Bush policies.

            Obama: self-described Republican; backed up by right-wing policies

            by The Dead Man on Sat Jun 08, 2013 at 02:37:54 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  You have a choice, Joan. (0+ / 0-)

      Democrats have primaries.  

      And if the guy who wins the primary is truly awful, you can always vote for a worthy independent.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site