Reply With Quote
The inevitable 'you've sold the base out but have nothing to show for it' bitter gloat.
Where in the are all those independents and moderate voters that the White House and our Democratic Senate have been sucking up to all year long while throwing the Leftist, activists under the bus? Surely that wizard, David Axelrod, didn't get this all wrong! That just couldn't be! Surely Axelrod has succeeded into converting oodles of independents and moderates into Democrats just in time for Tuesday to replace all those nasty "irrelevant" lefties. I mean, wasn't that the the strategy? Trash the "insignificant" Left to win the millions of moderates and Independents?
I mean, there should be millions of independent voters and moderate voters jumping at the chance now to vote for a moderate Democrat in Massachusetts on Tuesday. Where are they? Oh, no! You mean they didn't convert to be Democrats? Oh, my!
Why, tell me, is the Left now being scolded by Democratic career politicians for not getting out and working the precincts, working the phones, giving their passion and shoe-leather again? I thought that we were now "irrelevant", or so we were told right from the White House.
I gotta wonder: Why didn't all of last year's political compromising, promise breaking, corporate whoring, foreign warmongering, Wall Street loving and bank bail-outing succeed in converting millions of independents and "moderates" into Democrats to replace us who are so nasty, pesky, you know, the left-wing agitators? What happened?
Why is it, tell me, that the Democratic Party and its politicians --- who are swimming in cash from their coddling the insurance cartel and the defense contractors and the energy giants and Wall Street from their giveaways --- are now suddenly dialing 911 to the Left begging us to save their asses?
You mean that all that money might not be enough after all? Surely, they weren't wrong, were they?
You mean money doesn't vote? Surprise, surprise!
One would think that after all the compromising, all the butt-kissing of the right-wing, all of the money raised, all of the public trashing of Leftists in this country over the last 11 months, that there would now be millions upon millions of newly recruited independents and moderates to take the place of the Left, to fill our shoes, and to truly make us "irrelevant" at election time.
Uh, oh! Seems like those that were called "irrelevant" are suddenly very, very relevant, aren't we?
After sleeping around with everyone but your loyal wife, now you are coming home to your wife with lipstick on your collar, a broken zipper, booze on your breath begging for us to take you back. You know, your "irrelevant wife".
On one hand we are dismissed as "irrelevant" and "an insignificant, loud minority within the party" and then on the other hand we are begged and begged to get out once again and save the Party.
So, which is it? Are we relevant or irrelevant?
I think that the near begging by President Obama in Massachusetts to save that Senate Seat tells everyone everything they need to know about just who is relevant at election time.
There's a lesson here: You don't all over people who work for you, you don't betray them by going back on your promises and then call them up when your ass is in a sling.
This is the glaring lesson already evident in Massachusetts.
The inevitable 'you've sold the base out but have nothing to show for it' bitter gloat.
Marcus is right. Your rant, Dan, does remind me of the same arguments that came out of the far right after McCain became their candidate and he was not sufficiently 'pure' for them. Look at all of the arguments about RINOs that come out of the far-right. Isn't that essentially what you are accusing Obama and the democratic establishment of being...aren't you really saying that they are DINO's?
Well, it might be his.
Or, Yonivore's disease is spreading.
[QUOTE=Marcus Bryant;4006271]Well, it might be his.
Perhaps I should have said "this rant"
C'mon, Dan, tell me you just forgot to include the reference.
I just find it amazing, that people can't see what is right under their nose. Obama has left the democrats and left wing of the party to succomb to the right, "moderates" and corporate interests?
People are bailing off the OBAMA bandwagon because he's not left enough?
What color is the sky in your world?
Being a copy of Bush minus the religious hocus-pocus is definitely too far right.
If only OBAMA was only more to the left...everything would be much better!!
lol, amazing.
Hard to spin the MA senate race, even with a ty Dem candidate. Anyone with a pulse and a (D) next to their name should win this going away. Or without a pulse in the case of Teddy...or Stalin.
Of course, if this is just some right-wing corporate repug pitbull darth cheney ailes faux news dubya astroturf scam, what exactly is there to stop that from being deployed elsewhere? Or, stop the denial, the Congress and Pres are bombing that bad.
There wasn't a Kennedy nephew, cousin, or butler to run instead of Coakley? I'll give you that.
Democrats imploding after less than a year in power. it took Bush 8 years to do it to his party. Damn Obama is good.
ha. it really depends which side of his face he's talking out of. can you really not see it? are you that programmed? one clue here. carrie prejean and barack obama would answer perez hilton's famous question prrrrrrrrrrretty much the same way...
it's allllll hocus pocus, indeed.
let that marinate up there.......................
I say minus the religious hocus pocus because Obama didn't get advised weekly by fundamentalist whack-jobs like Ted Haggard and didn't get elected by campaigning on gay marriage.
Bush didn't get elected by campaigning on gay marriage. He got elected campaigning on fiscal responsibility and anti-nation building. Our military was being over used I recall him saying. He got re-elected on if you pick Kerry the terrorists are gonna gitcha.
Bush constantly campaigned on pushing an amendment to ban gay marriage in 2004.
Progressives just want Obama to live up to his campaign promises, unfortunately Obama has to often acted as a blue-dog democrat to try and please moderates and independent voters...on every important issue that Obama has strayed from the Progressive agenda, it has come back and bite him in the ass...
[QUOTE=EVAY;4006291]If we credited opinion, we'd be crediting all day....everything everyone posts here is someone else's opinion...
Just the appointment of Sotomayor to the Supreme Court instead of some wing-nut like Roberts, Scalia or Alito is difference enough....everything else is gravy...
Voter discontent with in bents and Coaxly being a bad campaigner is what you'll hear in the M$M, all I'm saying is that some progressives may be trying to teach the administration a lesson by weaking their guard and letting MA senate seat fall to a Republican, are biting their own nose to spite their faces...progressives don't want this montrosity health-care bill either...they want single-payer...
...dumbass...
Boston.com“I don’t know why some segments of political observers don’t seem to be as motivated. There’s a lot at stake. There’s a lot at stake in the election in Massachusetts; there’s a lot at stake in what’s debated every day on Capitol Hill. What’s at stake is whether we’re going to go forward with ideas for an economic recovery,’’ -White House press secretary Robert Gibbs.
Don't hold your breath for 2010 to be like 1994..
LA TimesIt cannot be denied that 1994 holds uncanny parallels to today. Then, as now, a young, ambitious Democratic president faced an obstructionist Republican opposition and a divided party. Then, as now, a Democratic president took office in the midst of an economic crisis and staked his presidency on the promise to provide universal healthcare, a goal that had eluded Democrats for four decades. Then, as now, some Americans responded with free-floating rage.
Yet it's essential to get history right, and what was most important about 1994 politically won't make or break the 2010 elections. Congress changed hands in 1994 because the Christian right recruited new voters and white Southerners shifted en masse to the GOP.
Neither evangelicals nor white Southerners can swing this year's election, because they are the Republican Party.
In November, the GOP needs to pick up 40 seats in the House and 11 in the Senate to win control of Congress. It needs to broaden its cons uency significantly but nothing suggests there are sufficient numbers of additional voters who can be recruited to its cause.
But what about the "tea party" movement? Can't it mobilize enough voters to enable the GOP to win control of Congress? Some much-touted polling seems to suggest so, but digging deeper into these surveys argues for skepticism. The Wall Street Journal/NBC poll showing the tea-party movement with a 41% favorability rating also tells us that 71% of those surveyed knew nothing at all, very little or just some about the tea-party movement. A Rasmussen poll showing that a tea-party candidate would come out ahead of a GOP candidate in a hypothetical three-way congressional race also tells us that the proportion of undecided voters equals tea-party supporters, and that the Democratic candidate tops a tea-party candidate by 13%.
Tea-party activists do share the ideological intensity of some GOP voters of 1994. But they are neither new voters, like 1994's evangelicals, nor are they party switchers, like 1994's white Southerners. There is no good evidence -- in surveys or reporting -- that they are anything other than disaffected conservatives who have previously voted Republican. At this moment, the odds are better that they'll split the GOP than that they'll sweep the Democrats out of power.
Historical patterns will allow the GOP to pick up seats this year. The out-of-power "base" will be more enthusiastic. The demographics of traditionally low-turnout midterms will favor the GOP. Democrats must defend more seats and will be held responsible for any problems in the country come election day. In 2010, Democrats will lose some seats, as have all but three in bent parties in midterm elections since the New Deal. But the demographics are clear: 1994 won't repeat itself.
The first thing democrats should learn, is that it is not Ted Kennedy's seat!
It's the peoples.
I would hope, that whoever wins, the fact that poles now favor a rebublican...
Democrats everywhere who will be on the ballot for this year should really re-think their duties to the people.
"poles now favor a rebublican"
and the Irish still favor a Kennedy
"re-think their duties to the people."
but Repugs and conservatives are excluded from the same duty.
lolololol
Reps can't get the moooooooooooooderates. They just can't appeal to the independeeeeeeeeeeents.
yawn
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
