Why does Obama make speech after speech calling for change but not proposing any policy changes? Because there’s nothing the President of the United States can do to change anything.
Hope and ______
Ted Rall
Ted Rall is a syndicated political cartoonist for Andrews McMeel Syndication, WhoWhatWhy.org and Counterpoint. He is a frequent contributor to The Wall Street Journal, a graphic novelist and author of many books of art and prose, and an occasional war correspondent. He is, recently, the author of the graphic novel "The Stringer."
39 Comments. Leave new
“If only there was something the public could do to get rid of the people ACTUALLY blocking progress on those issues!”
Oh wait, there is- instead of misplacing their anger and blame, they could vote the f-ing Republicans out. But I guess that just wouldn’t be as much fun as bashing Democrats and the President for things that arent actually their fault, now would it?
Oh, @Whim, now I really am beginning to wonder whether you’re working in a DNC digital sweatshop somewhere for 5 cents an hour. If so, demand a raise! You’re good, you deserve more.
I have a question for you. Let’s assume Democratic House, Senate and White House. Do you think that would lead to:
Banning drones?
Closing the NSA or at least banning domestic surveillance?
Closing Gitmo?
Ending military interventionism?
Anti-poverty programs?
Jailing banksters?
Nationalizing criminal corporations like the US subsidiary of BP?
Cuz, if not, like, I so. Totally. Don’t. Care.
Ted,
Didn’t the Dems have that? A majority of the House, Senate, and the presidency from 2007 through 2011? Oh, wait, that’s right, they didn’t have a supermajority in all three. Or a Green Lantern power ring.
And if they did, I’d need to understand the importance of COMPROMISE. We didn’t elect a king. He really needs 90 Senate seats, 400 House seats, and then, he might be able to get something put onto the docket for discussion.
You know what compromise is, right? That’s when you give up half of what you think you ought to be getting so that someone else can something you don’t think they deserve in the first place.
@Ted-
Yes, I think that continuously electing and actually SUPPORTING Democrats (as opposed to abandoning them nearly instantaneously for not making impossible leaps to the left immediately) will EVENTUALLY get you everything on that list.
“Cuz, if not, like, I so. Totally. Don’t. Care.”
You couldn’t have summed up the problem with the current far left better. They’d rather throw a screaming tantrum if they don’t get what they want the INSTANT they ask for it- then put in the necessary work to get it.
You know who else I know who does that? My niece- she throws a screaming fit if she isn’t given what she wants as soon as the request is out of her mouth. Never works for her- never will work for you.
But then again, she’s two and a half. What’s your excuse?
It’s a good cartoon. Looks a little different, a little slicker, different character-types than your usual.
@Whimsical:
What you’re asking for is impossible to supply. Not only are you saying that Democrats must enjoy supermajorities (hi Alex) in the House and Senate, as well as the Presidency, to get anything substantial (and left of center) accomplished, they must retain one-party rule for a long time. But there is no historical precedent for that. No party has enjoyed long-term single party rule of the legislative and executive branches.
Yet there are many examples of political parties pushing through dramatic changes, sometimes with just the president (and perhaps the majority of one house of Congress). In the past, we saw FDR push through the New Deal and LBJ’s Voting Rights and Civil Rights Acts. Unfortunately, only Republicans (or DINOs like Clinton) have accomplished big changes since the 1970s: the Reagan Revolution, Bush’s security state. And they did it without long-term one-party control.
We don’t have to look back very far to find an example of a president who did not have Congress on his side getting everything he wanted: George W. Bush, 2001-2004. Except, of course, the Democrats went along with him.
You’re setting the bar so high it’s impossible to clear.
@Ted
What nonsense. Please provide me the exact quote where I said anything about “supermajorities”.
It has nothing to do with supermajorities. It has EVERYTHING to do with abandoning the attitude that has driven the Democratic party so far right over the past 40 years (which is the ONLY reason one-party control will be TEMPORARILY necessary) and embracing an attitude that will push the party back to the left. And its going to take time- the left has been driving the party right for at least 40 years- so they’re going to have to learn patience-that isn’t going to fix itself overnight.
But you’re right about one thing- for the far left, actually SUPPORTING Democrats is indeed “an impossible bar to clear”. But the problem is with them, not the Democrats. The sooner they fix their attitudes and begin the work, the sooner they’ll start to see the results they claim to want.
I think the cartoon is perfect. I hope Ted was being sarcastic in his comment in the blog about the President not being able to change anything. Like he said later, Reagan changed a lot as did Clinton.
Whim, I’m afraid to say I agree with the sentiment of this cartoon 100%. Obama is a failure. He’s all hat and no horse. The man is supposed to be a leader, not an editorialist. Leaders find ways to get shit done. Southern racists can be defeated. LBJ did it. That’s the kind of president the left needs. Someone that knows how to twist arms.
@Ted: Idiots like “The Idiot Whimsical” don’t need to be paid to perpetuate Democrat propaganda, they’re more than happy to do it for free. And, they’re good at it.
As for your question about what would happen with a Democrat super-majority, we already know. The blame just shifts. “Oh, it’s the Blue Dogs”. (Remember them?) And the next time it would just be another invented enemy, another invented impediment. In fact, Democrats want to avoid a super-majority at all costs because it makes the invented excuses all that much harder to make. Better to just blame Republicans.
The fact that the Idiot Whimsical actually believes you’d have all those things on your list if you just voted and supported Democrats is really indicative of his depraved nature, his total submission to propaganda. There’s a name for his kind: Enabers. They are the most dangerous impediment to real change, and I’ve noted that many times before. If your revolution ever comes Ted, you’ll have to deal with the Enablers first and foremost. Any cleansing needs to start there.
I wonder how difficult it is in Whimsical’s world to get a modicum of Dems (because that’s all it would have taken) not to accomplish Ted’s far-left goals (nationalizing BP?), but simply to defund a controversial, unpopular and unconstitutional NSA “program”. Oh yeah, how difficult it would have been for Pelosi & co to go along with that?
I know, I know, the Repugs just wouldn’t let them! Honestly…
It always interests me when people who display the attitude that has driven the Democratic party so far right complain about the Democratic party being so far right.
It’d be funny if it wasn’t so sad…
As for the NSA, had the left’s shitty attitude not kept people away from the polls in 2010 (a census, and therefore a redistricting year), the Republicans would not have been able to pull of the massive gerrymander that was the only reason they kept the House in 2012. I warned the left about the consequences of their attitude back then, and I’ll keep warning them until they realize where the problem actually lies and change.
Without the gerrymander, the House would look a lot different, and the defund the NSA amendment might have passed. Ah well, far lefties- you reap what you sow. Can’t say you weren’t warned.
My God, whimsical, are you serious about the national security agency? Barack Obama greatly expanded the NSA’s domestic surveillance programs, including the prism program, after he became president in 2009 with control of Congress and the media honeymoon. He did that himself. You can’t blame Republicans for that. Seriously? Blaming the left? And anyway, what left?
I had great hope going in to Obama’s first term, but I now see that he’s all show and no go…..And the public can’t stop voting in and retaining so many crazies….But I do believe that the GOP’s “block him at all costs” has contributed to this mess we have now. The defunding of the NSA would have been a good move, but the legislatures wouldn’t approve it, and the Pres never got behind it in an effective way – in fact, I never heard him support this, when he could have come out on this issue. The Corps and special interests are so entrenched! Citizens United needs to be repealed and more, but where’s the united public asking for this? Man! Lots of strident voices, but an ignorant, blind public doesn’t help. Maybe we need “The List”? :^0
Actually the Dems most recently held the presidency and both house of congress from Jan 21, 2009 through Jan 20, 2011.
Whimsical’s theory of “representative democracy” is exactly that of my local, small-town totalitarian regime: “we want to hear from you citizens only ONCE every four years, when you keep us in office. Otherwise, buzz off with your notions of participation in the process that determines the course of your stinking lives.”
The machinations of the Steve Israel led DCCC, for example, disprove Whimsical’s theory.
It does not matter if “the left” (a fantasy all it’s own) stays away from midterm elections, in droves, being in a snit “merely” because a Democratic president has been engaging, for two years, in political fellatio with the neo-fascist he was elected to vanquish.
The matter is decided well prior to the elections, that is, when “Democratic” candidates are recruited, or not, and supported, or not, by the national party committees for development of congressional candidates, one for the house the other for the senate.
For a continual series of articles on the right-wing scum recruited by the “Dems” for the House races check out http://www.downwithtyranny.blogspot.com/
It’s an excellent point that Obama does a lot of useless editorializing.
I’m saddened to see Whimsical is hijacking threads again. I’ll keep this brief. Nothing has motivated Dems to be liberal in forty years. They’re much too busy obsessing over GOP successes, corporate donors, and the elusive “swing voters.” They know that most “liberal” fools will just bite the bullet and vote Dem no matter what. Where is the incentive for Dems to be more liberal? Whether they win or lose; whether we vote for them or not, they become more conservative. So if they controlled everything AGAIN but for decades they would magically determine it was time to let out their inner liberal selves? I think Ted has said something before like, “If I want to vote for a Republican, I’ll vote for a Republican.” Republican-lite is no real choice.
“Nothing has motivated Dems to be liberal in forty years.”
Because 40 years ago, the Democratic party was hijacked by people who somehow came to believe that the best way to get progressive goals achieved was to immediately abandon any Democrat who didn’t give them the entirety of what they wanted, as soon as the request was made. I believe (but cannot prove) that they were tricked into it by right wing operatives and just became too stubborn to admit how utterly stupid that attitude is.
Because despite that attitude being a complete and utter failure, they kept doubling down on it- and what kills me is while they double down on the attitude that drove the Democratic party right, they have the gall to complain about the Democratic party being so far right.
“Where is the incentive for Dems to be more liberal? ”
There isn’t any. YOU and those who share your foolish belief have taken any and all incentive for Dems to be liberal away. They aren’t going to be more liberal until YOU change YOUR attitude.
Start supporting Democrats for any movement left, no matter how small, instead of immediately abandoning them for not moving as far left as you would like, as quickly as you would like, and the party will move left.
Keep being stuck on a stupid, doomed to fail strategy, and whining about the results, and they won’t.
It really is just that simple.
@whimsical: “Because 40 years ago, the Democratic party was hijacked by people who somehow came to believe that the best way to get progressive goals achieved was to immediately abandon any Democrat who didn’t give them the entirety of what they wanted, as soon as the request was made. I believe (but cannot prove) that they were tricked into it by right wing operatives and just became too stubborn to admit how utterly stupid that attitude is.”
You are entitled to your own mistaken opinions, but not your own historical facts.
What really happened was that, starting in the early 1990s with Bill Clinton and his Democratic leadership Council, the Democratic Party was hijacked by its conservative wing. Liberals have been out-of-favor within the Democratic Party ever since George McGovern’s defeat was blamed on liberalism and his desire for socialized medicine, rather than the fact that the election was stolen by Richard Nixon. It is absolutely misreading of history and alive to suggest that liberals have had any kind of majoritarian control within the Democratic Party over the last 40 years.
@Ted
I don’t blame Republicans for the NSA debacle. I blame the left for driving the party so far right that there wouldn’t be enough leftists in the party to prevent it.
The attitude of the left made the election of someone with attitudes like Obama’s inevitable and his every action predictable. Damn right they need to take responsibility for the actions of the politicians their shitty attitude got us.
Now the rest of your comment is LOL worthy in large part for your presumption and your lack of reading comprehension. Your OPINION about what happened in the 90’s with Clinton, while not technically incorrect doesn’t go anywhere near deep enough. It started, as I continue to tell you, with the shitty attitude of liberals in the 70’s- notable around the time Kennedy rejected Nixon’s health care deal (Kennedy came to his senses later in life- if only the rest of the left would follow his example and stop being stuck on stupid).
20 years of liberals shitty attitude made Clinton predictable and inevitable. 20 more years of liberals shitty attitude made Obama predictable and inevitable. We can’t afford for liberals to have a shitty attitude anymore.
” It is absolutely misreading of history and alive to suggest that liberals have had any kind of majoritarian control within the Democratic Party over the last 40 years.”
Good thing I’m saying nothing of the sort then; complete reading comprehension fail on your part.
Liberals have had no influence within the party over the last 40 years- but it’s entirely their own damned fault. Their shitty attitude is DIRECTLY responsible for their marginalization, and they will continue to be marginalized until they change their attitude.
What about blaming the people responsible for it? Like, um, Obama?
Which is what we’re doing.
Whimsical never explains anything. His every comment is a rephrasing of his last. Attitude? Look at your own. So many excuses. It’s OUR fault. Everything is. Dems can’t help but be turned off by our ATTITUDES. Attitudes that expect accountability, justice, honesty from the people for whom we vote? What WORK? Voting Dem and waiting? How is it that both right-wingers and leftists move everything right? He has never explained this. The real reason everything is right is because the power structure is inherently right-wing. The real left has no money or connections. We’re against the whole damn system. What powers would want to help us destroy them? Voting for a corrupt party simply validates its current path. I don’t think they’d soul search. I don’t think Dem pols would even realize if “the Left” was suddenly voting for them in droves. Leftists aren’t even allowed on TV. Now if we did the exact opposite of what Whimsical is saying, which is probably impossible to pull off, we might be able to change the Dem party. We would have to finally learn from Republican voters. They are aggressively extreme. But wait! Wouldn’t that “DRIVE THE GOP LEFT???” They punish center-right republicans at the polls. And get their super whackjob candidates into office. If we could actually primary Obama and company from the LEFT…
Point is, punishment is the only way to make Dems consider moving left. Rewarding them for neocon behavior? How will that help? They’ll just keep focusing on corporate money and swing voters.
@ Jack Heart –
.
Thanks for pointing out the conundrum that has been bothering me on this thread. I have been asking myself who these people are who 40 years ago “hijacked” the Democratic Party, during the Nixon Administration. How did they pull this off, driving the party so far right? What is the attitude that is being attributed to an entire group consigned the label “the Left”?
.
You said it best with: “Whimsical never explains anything. His every comment is a rephrasing of his last.”
.
Some of us read these comments with the intent of being enlightened. Whimsical = Big Fail!
People who have the same attitude as you and Jack are directly responsible for Obama, Ted. Well, for making it currently impossible for anyone to the left of Obama to be elected- so you are responsible for Obama’s actions.
Not sure if Jack is being deliberately obtuse, or just has his head stuck that far up his own ass, as I’ve explained the problem with the left’s shitty attitude repeatedly: They believe (or have been tricked into believing) that if a Democratic candidate doesn’t immediately make as far left a move as they would like the answer is to punish them by abandoning all support, forever.
Despite 40 years of evidence that it DOESN’T WORK LIKE THAT, people like Jack remain stuck on a stupid, doomed to fail strategy(Seriously, he talked about punishing candidates- the same damnfailed strategy that the left has been trying for the past 40 years). I suspect it’s a combination of egotism (they cannot believe that THEIR attitude is the reason the Democratic party has gone so far right) and laziness- they would simply rather bitch about the Democratic party then do the necessary work to demonstrate enough support for Democrats to convince Democrats to move left. Its easier, and I suspect that getting to constantly bash Democrats gives them a better emotional high.
People and attitudes like Jack’s are the reason liberals have had NO power in the Democratic Party for the past 40 years. And until he and those like him change their attitudes, liberals will continue to have no power- and it will be entirely their own fault.
One of the problems with your line of reasoning, whimsical, is that it assumes something that simply isn’t true. As much as liberals, progressives and other leftists would like to punish Democratic candidates who adhere to conservative politics like Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, they have not proven any ability to do so. To the contrary, the Democratic Party keeps moving to the right and these very same leftists and progressives and liberals continue to vote for the Democratic Party nevertheless. They have not punished, nor have they attempted to punish right-wing Dems by withholding their support.
Certainly one can point to a few scattershot attempts to hold democratic candidates to democratic values, such as the attempt to defeat Sen. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut in the Democratic primaries a few years ago, but these have been scattershot and unsuccessful. So whatever our so-called attitude, there has been no practical effect.
«People who have the same attitude as you and Jack are directly responsible for Obama, Ted. Well, for making it currently impossible for anyone to the left of Obama to be elected- so you are responsible for Obama’s actions.»
Wow ! Don’t you think, Ted, that «Whimsical» has now qualified for a leading position with the «Notional Sophistry Agency» ? If not he, who ?…
Henri
@ Ted –
” [T]he Democratic Party keeps moving to the right and these very same leftists and progressives and liberals continue to vote for the Democratic Party nevertheless.”
.
That is exactly the conundrum that I mentioned previously. When offered a choice between “bad” and “a little less than bad” (to put it mildly), what is a Progressive like me to do? I have been known to vote for the Independent (or other 3rd-party candidate) but I’ve come to realize that it is a wasted vote, since those candidates don’t have a prayer of winning.
.
So where do we go from here? What is the solution to a 2-party system that gives the voter only a choice between “bad” and “a little less than bad”? I am now seventy-years-old, and that “Revolution” than is needed will never occur in my lifetime. I wish I could live to see it.
.
@ Whimsical –
@ Ted –
” [T]he Democratic Party keeps moving to the right and these very same leftists and progressives and liberals continue to vote for the Democratic Party nevertheless.”
.
That is exactly the conundrum that I mentioned previously. When offered a choice between “bad” and “a little less than bad” (to put it mildly), what is a Progressive like me to do? I have been known to vote for the Independent (or other 3rd-party candidate) but I’ve come to realize that it is a wasted vote, since those candidates don’t have a prayer of winning.
.
So where do we go from here? What is the solution to a 2-party system that gives the voter only a choice between “bad” and “a little less than bad”? I am now seventy-years-old, and that “Revolution” than is needed will never occur in my lifetime. I wish I could live to see it.
—–
@ Whimsical –
As I stated previously, I read these comments for edification, so I’m still having trouble understanding your position. For example:
1) “Well, for making it currently impossible for anyone to the left of Obama to be elected….”
How is it being made “impossible” if the voters’ choices are limited to those who are nominated by the respective parties?
2) “They believe (or have been tricked into believing) that if a Democratic candidate doesn’t immediately make as far left a move as they would like the answer is to punish them by abandoning all support, forever.”
In my mind, that statement is a complete fabrication, at least as regards my own experience. I had a choice between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama; and even though I’ve been completely disappointed by Obama’s lack of performance, I cast my vote for the Democratic candidate. Choosing the “lesser of two evils” is a far cry from “abandoning all support.”
3) “[T]hey would simply rather bitch about the Democratic party then [sic] do the necessary work to demonstrate enough support for Democrats to convince Democrats to move left.”
What “work to demonstrate enough support” do you recommend in light of the circumstances? I’m game; I’d like to see a *REAL* Presidential candidate who supports my views and those of others with my convictions. Tell me what attitude I’m lacking to get the job done, and I’ll help spread the word.
I apologize for the “partial” post. I’m not sure how that happened. I’ll try to do better.
Ted, Ted Ted-
Once again, you dance up to the lip of understanding, and dance back away. I’m so disappointed.
” As much as liberals, progressives and other leftists would like to punish Democratic candidates who adhere to conservative politics like Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, they have not proven any ability to do so.”
Of course not! You don’t HAVE that ability- that’s what I’ve been trying to say. But the shitty attitude of the left makes them THINK they have that ability, and THAT is what gets them marginalized.
“They have not punished, nor have they attempted to punish right-wing Dems by withholding their support.”
Completely and objectively false. You’re confusing voting with support. Voting is the absolute least of what liberals are going to have to do if they’d like to be relevant again. Sadly, too many on the far left are content with doing the absolute least and then whining about the results.
You are not only going to have to vote, you are going to have to volunteer and donate and proselytize. If you don’t, then as far as the Democrats are concerned you are abandoning them (and justifiably so) and when they lose, the lesson they will take is not to support what the left wants, since the left didn’t support them.
THAT’S what the left has been doing for 40 years- when they don’t get the entirety of what they want, they just do the bare minimum, despite the evidence that that is completely and utterly insufficient.
Take the Obama care vote: EVERY single House Democrat who voted for it should’ve been flooded with enough money and volunteer hours to ensure they won their election. Obamacare should’ve been hailed universally as the great first step that it was.
What did we get instead? The left, disgusted that they didn’t get everything they wanted (single payer), denounced the Democrats and the President all over the place (which had a negative effect on the general population), or best-case scenario- did the bare minimum, as they’ve done for 40 years when they didn’t get all of what they wanted- despite 40 years of evidence that doing just the minimum doesn’t get them any closer to what they want- in fact, it takes them further away.
And, what message did the Democrats take when they lost (because the left didn’t do enough)? You guessed it- don’t go left, you won’t be supported. Had they won their election, not only would those who won be motivated to go further left, waverers would be motivated to go left as well. Which is how the left has made it impossible for people left of Obama to be elected- those that would be left of Obama look at the lack of support mild lefties got, and think “They didn’t support him- they sure as hell aren’t going to support me. Might as well not bother.”
There’s your answer-Der. You’re going to have to do a hell of a lot more than voting if you want to improve the system, and you’re going to have to do it for a long time. The left has been stuck on the bare minimum for 40 years, it’s going to take at least half that time to undo.
Voting alone won’t cut it. It hasn’t cut it for 40 years, and isn’t going to cut it anytime soon. Until the left understands that and are willing to ACTUALLY support Democrats for any movement left, no matter how slight instead of doing the bare minimum (or less, by consistently bad mouthing Democrats) when they don’t get what they want as soon as they want it- they will continue to remain irrelevant, there will be little to no progress on progressive goals, and the party will continue to drift right- because they will see no point in going left due to lack of support.
Oh, and Ted-
” So whatever our so-called attitude, there has been no practical effect.”
You’re joking, yes? The EFFECT is very clear- the effect is the pushing of the party right, the disappearance of progressives from the nominating process, and the general disinterest in politics. It’s practically become a self-fulfilling prophecy at this point, and it needs to change.
You’ve seen the results of your attitude for 40 years, you don’t like it, and yet you wont change it. Why is that exactly?
” so you are responsible for Obama’s actions.”
But not you as well, Whimsical? After all, you voted for him.
@ Whimsical –
.
The question I directed to you, in the hopes of edification:
??How is it being made “impossible” if the voters’ choices are limited to those who are nominated by the respective parties? ??
.
Your response:
.
1) ??*You are not only going to have to vote, you are going to have to volunteer and donate and proselytize. If you don’t, then as far as the Democrats are concerned you are abandoning them (and justifiably so) and when they lose, the lesson they will take is not to support what the left wants, since the left didn’t support them.*??
.
2) ??There’s your answer-Der. You’re going to have to do a hell of a lot more than voting if you want to improve the system, and you’re going to have to do it for a long time. The left has been stuck on the bare minimum for 40 years, it’s going to take at least half that time to undo.??
.”
With regard to Number 1:
.
How do you envision “volunteer and donate and proselytize” in view of the fact that the American citizens are presented with nominees that simply have to pass muster for the party elite who make nominations? How am I, as an individual, able to influence those decisions and make certain that “my candidate” is on the slate? (BTW, your conclusion that “[T]he lesson they will take is not to support what the left wants, since the left didn’t support them” is ??non sequitur?? and thus falacious. The logical conclusion of any thinking person would demand the opposite: “The left didn’t support me; perhaps I should not have been so far to the right. Moving further to the right would be counter-productive.”
.
With regard to Number 2:
.
Refer to my response to Number 1, as well as the questions asked in my previous post, none of which have been sufficiently answered. (And you have the audacity to tell Ted: ??Once again, you dance up to the lip of understanding, and dance back away.??)
@Susan-
Ah, but I’m not the one trying to deny Obama. Or to complain that he violated my (absurdly unrealistic) set of expectations.
I voted, volunteered, donated, and proselytized for Obama and I wear that as a badge of honor. Because I understood that until the left stops being stuck on stupid, he was going to be the best we were going to get; but if the left played its cards right he could be the beginning of a long, slow, hard turn around (so much for THAT theory. I should’ve known the left wouldn’t get it). I predicted everything he’s done in advance of him doing it, and I still maintain that given the circumstances, he’s done close to the best that could be reasonably asked of him.
So, yes, I am responsible for Obama. But people like you and Ted are responsible for making sure that no one to the left of Obama could be elected, and thus, you don’t get to wash your hands of his actions and go “Not MY fault”. Not to me, anyway.
Der, I’ll get to you tomorrow- I’m out of time for the night.
If only better threads on rall.com could stay alive so long.
I think roughly the most any of us here expected from Obama is that he be at least more liberal than George W. Bush. It really is unreasonable to expect a president to keep his campaign promises anymore. We all know he won’t.
Whimsical is using a straw man here. We don’t expect Obama to be as left-wing as us. We just won’t support fascist monsters. Whimsical has no problem doing that, further, he proposes that it is the best course of action, presumably to all who will listen.
He also assumes that Dems will take extra “The Left” support (if Dems even notice it) as a cue to “move left.” Since Dems have historically moved right no matter what taking liberal support for granted, why shouldn’t we expect them to continue to ignore liberals? “Hey, we’re already getting their votes. Why bother being liberal?” (Along the lines of dehlerer’s comment) We all know there are incredible amounts of small ‘l’ liberals like Whimsical championing Dems. We see them all the time in the media. We hear about all those heroic young adults helping Obama win with social media. And lo, Dems still ignore liberal issues even after all the support (support defined by Whimsical as going beyond mere voting to be “volunteer, donate, and proselytize.”
Whimsical said, “Vote the f-ing Republicans out.” Difficult to accomplish when everyone in office is ideologically Republican! What does it matter their partisan alignment?
I reiterate: we’re in such a mess because people like Whimsical pretend to be progressives but will settle for any Dem because they are partisan to the end. They are enablers, making excuses and apologies for atrocities and travesties. Why are we mad at Dems? BECAUSE THEY’RE SUPPOSED TO BE BETTER THAN REPUBS NOT TRYING TO COPY THEM!
Further, I’m 24 years old. None of this “40 years” crap is my fault. I used to vote for Dems. Before I could vote I “proselytized” for them. I was so excited to vote as soon as I turned 18. After 2008, I decided I would never vote again. I’d have liked to see truly radical measures that no candidate I voted for would ever have attempted. BUT I DIDN’T HOLD THAT AGAINST THEM. I DID NOT EXPECT THAT. You get that, Whimsical? I do not expect perfection from my candidates. I do not expect miracles and perfect radical lefty politics. I just want them to stop being EVIL.
@ Jack Heart –
Re: Your post of July 30, 2013 at 5:56 AM
.
“Whimsical is using a straw man here.”
Exactly! Now we’re back to the “conundrum” I mentioned previously.
.
“Difficult to accomplish when everyone in office is ideologically Republican! What does it matter their partisan alignment?”
Once again, you reiterate that “conundrum”! I’m curious to see what logical fallacy now follows from “Whimsical” (although I’m slowly recognizing that there’s a Troll trying to undermine any rational discussion).
derlehrer,
Whimsical has been dodgy, fallacious, and played loose with the facts. He also insulted me if Mr. Rall was paying attention. “Not sure if Jack is being deliberately obtuse, or just has his head stuck that far up his own ass.” “The Left” is an overgeneralization as well as a fantasy group on which Whimsical can blame the failure of Dems. We’re the ones who won’t tolerate the crimes of politicians. If “Obama is the best we can get,” count me out.
His position is contradictory and based upon historical inaccuracies as well as baseless, improbable assumptions as to how Dems will respond to support from “The Left.” Dems have moved right because that’s where the money is. Period. Whimsical never engages the more difficult points we bring up. For example, he didn’t explain why punishing candidates works so well for Tea Partiers but won’t work for “The Left.” And despite his protestations, he did not adequately explain how our attitudes are so directly responsible for Obama. He just claimed so without detail, facts, or reasoning.
Dems are worse than Repubs because they are supposed to know better. Just the same as Whimsical is worse than a warmongering, xeno- and homophobic voter for the same reason. There will always be evil people. And there will always be the worst people who enable them, the “Whimsicals.”
People like Ted are the last ones “responsible for Obama.” He was pointing out problems from the get-go. He warned that Obama was the conservative of the Dem primary.
Actually, Whimsical, my expectations of Obama were pretty damn low. I voted for him because he was much less likely than Sarah Palin and John McCain to press the nuclear button. You can’t get any lower than that for expectations, right? In 2012, there was no way that Mitt Romney would be crazy enough to press any nuclear button, so I didn’t bother to show up at the polls.
So, to repeat myself so that it sinks in, I vote for the candidate who is less likely to kill us all. It’s a good thing I don’t have any kids that I have to explain that to.
Having checked back daily for almost a week, I now realize that this troll will not address material or relevant matter.
.
whim·si·cal (hwmz-kl, wm-)
adj.
1. Determined by, arising from, or marked by whim or caprice.
2. Erratic in behavior or degree of unpredictability: a whimsical personality.