President Barack Obama talks on the phone with members of the U.S. Olympic women’s gymnastics team during a phone call from Air Force One, Aug. 1, 2012. The President called the women to congratulate them on their gold medal in the team competition. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)
“I wouldn’t say I support him. I would say I will vote for him.” – Michael Moore [Washington CBSLocal]
THESE TYPES of comments, like what Susan Sarandon said as well, are actually helpful.
If you know any progressives, but especially if you know anyone inside the Democratic institutional base, many are anything but enthused about the President’s first term.
However, the thought of Mitt Romney winning is totally unacceptable for obvious reasons: his embrace of the Paul Ryan budget; his pledge to get rid of wind subsidies; his threat to women’s freedoms; that he’s against marriage equality; and then there’s his spoon fed foreign policy neoconservatism, just to name a few examples.
This reasoning is just as valid as people who are refusing to play the “lesser of two evils” game anymore, because the country continues to end up with corporate politicians who protect the status quo. The current duo will both likely move on entitled “reform” and we all know what that means.
People who feel like Moore and Sarandon, which I know many of you do, wouldn’t be the first to have to hold their nose to vote Democratic. Believe it or not, many liberals did that very thing when voting for William Jefferson Clinton back in the ’90s, though I wasn’t one of them.
Yeah, but at least Bill Clinton had a good economy. That’s more than Obama can say unfortunately.
He didn’t have crazy nihilistic teabaggers to deal with either!
Where were you in the 90′s? You don’t remember Hillary being accused of killing Vince Foster and him being accused of crime after imaginary crime?
Were their crazy Republicans in the 1990′s sure, but they weren’t running the GOP! The crazies are running the GOP asylum now and President Obama is constitutionally required to deal with them!
You think Newt Gingrich is/was sane? He’s just as insane now as he was then. It’s NO different. The difference is that Clinton broke their back while Obama has let them walk all over him.
Clinton broke the GOP’s back? LOL! Really? Was that what President Clinton was doing when he signed off on the repeal of Glass-Stegall, welfare reform and NAFTA? Was he breaking the GOP’s back when he failed to even get a vote on his healthcare reform bill in the senate? Was he breaking their backs when he signed DOMA and DADT into law? Your recall needs some work. LOL!
I didn’t vote for Clinton in 1992,as a veteran I couldn’t vote for a draft dodger, anymore than I could vote for Romny, another draft dodger. I detested him for treating his wife like dirt. I voted for Perot in 1992 as a protest vote against Clinton, held my nose and voted for Clintom in 1996. His second adminstration was a disaster for the Democratic Party. He led the Democrats into embracing Wall Street and with the Republicans and his Treasury Sectretary, Robert Rubin who was recruited from Goldmann-Sachs, took the lead in repealing the Glass-Seagal Act the primary cause of the global financial collapse in 2008.
I would vote for Hillary in 2016, I hope she runs and will be casting an enthusiastic vote for President Obama in November.
“He” in this sentence could just as easily be Mr. Obama.
Then he allowed Goldman-Sachs man Tim Geithner to run Treasury.
Hyper-partisans talking about Clinton and Obama sound like people trying to pick gnat crap out of pepper.
I won’t get into Glass-Steagal that had a veto-proof majority and the entire Congress behind it, because Clinton is a neoliberal, no doubt. But the course was set on the global financial collapse during Ronald Reagan.
Fan politics is a curse, because it rewrites history AND gets it wrong in the process.
Priceless!
I have to laugh when I read comments like these from people like Micheal Moore, Susan Sarandon, Howard Dean and Matt Damon. Throwing rocks is the easiest thing in the world when your not the one in the hot seat. President Obama has more tangible accomplishments than both of the other Dem Presidents since LBJ. President Clinton had a great economy but when it comes to Presidential firsts, no competition!
The fatal flaw some libs have is this tendency of always looking at the glass as half empty. The hard left just like the hard right refuse to accept that most people in this country live their lives somewhere in the middle. President Obama can’t legislate all by himself he needs a congress that is willing to deal but of course since Dems decided not to show and vote in 2010 he doesn’t have that. What he has had for the last almost two years in a Congress dominated by people who think climate change is a hoax and that the President is a Socialist, Communist, Manchurian candidate who was born in Kenya! That magic negro thing lefties into in is insulting to African Americans!
Do you realize that you are really advocating for Romney? I mean all I hear is “Obama can’t do this or Obama can’t do that” and that says to me why bother voting for him if he can’t do anything.
You don’t like the man so your take on the man is what it is! Your holding him to a standard no politician could meet under the current situation in DC. I am not advocating for Romney, that is just silly. I am advocating for treating and judging President Obama fairly. I am advocating for not scapegoating him for the action of others. I am advocating for giving the man the political tools he needs to get things done and one of those tools that he needs is a Congress that is willing to work with him in the Interests of the American people.
You guys constantly forget that Obama had all three branches of congress for two years. The problem is that Obama does not have leadership qualities and no ideological compass.
You are not being honest when you say Obama had all three branches of congress for two years. First off, there is only two branches of congress. second is with the 60 vote rule to get anything passed in the senate he really didn’t have a slam dunk majority. With the number of blue dog democrats in the senate the so called majority the president had wasn’t really there.
The policy comes “after” the voting, not “before”! If you don’t turn out to vote and your opponents do well they are ones who will get what they want not you!
Solo you’re forgetting about the government shut down. If Obama had been president then he would have been curled up in a corner begging the GOP not to beat him up. He does not have an ideological compass and that cannot be fixed. He just wants to check off a list so he can say he did “something” and could care less whether the policy is actually good or not.
You have a very short memory when it comes to president Clinton. The left in this country where no friends of Clinton when he was in office, He rammed threw welfare reform and threw the poor in this country under the bus. He sold gays out by enacting don’t ask, don’t tell, he pushed threw NAFTA and was a right of center democrat. The only thing Clinton had going for him was a rip roaring economy, and didn’t stand up for the poor, women or working people when he was in office.
Damn! Someone else on this thread with a functioning memory! Kudos!
I never said the left was friends of Clinton but for the life of me I can’t understand why they love Obama. Obama can’t even manage to get the economy done right. He doesn’t know which adviser to listen to and which one not to. And Obama has done more free trade than Clinton. He even has fast track which Clinton did not have.
Would you rather have had gays been able to be thrown out of the military which was the current standard at the time. When DADT was enacted the GOP was screaming it was the end of the world. The irony is that Clinton is to the left of Obama. Obama is more of a Reagan Republican than anything else.
So if republicans were screaming about gays in the military you would think you would have been unhappy that Clinton caved with a weak kneed response like don’t ask, don’t tell. It kind of sounds like the same type of caving that you accuse Obama of doing, but for some reason Clinton has gotten a pass and Obama hasn’t. Clinton caved on welfare reform, NAFTA and health care reform, but he doesn’t seem to get the same hatred from some on the left that Obama gets and he had a much more reasonable congress to work with.
No, Republicans were screaming about DADT. They did not want it. Clinton did not “cave” on welfare reform. How can you “cave” on welfare reform when you campaigned on welfare reform I would like to know? He also campaigned on passing NAFTA. Now you can not like those but I would consider those keeping campaign promises instead of “caving”. I call what Obama does caving because he has not kept his campaign promises. He promised a public option and did not even try to pass one. The reason Obama does not get any respect is because he does not even try. There is nothing absolutely nothing that he will not compromise away as we have seen time and time again. People have more respect for people who fight and lose than people who don’t even try.
Exactly. Well put.
The changes needed in our two party system will come, I continue to think, from people working both from within and without. I’m in the “without” crowd, and know lots of “without” people doing important work. I also know lots of “within” people who are doing important work. I don’t think an either/or answer related to “how to change things” is any better than it is to the either/or options of the Duopoly.
What you’ve written about with the Green Party this year, Joyce, illustrates it’s picking up steam, however slowly. Along with the Electoral College move, which I happen to think is the most important element of all.
It’s “the left” that is so far behind and we see around here every day why this is so.
There are a lot of people working within the system shaking things up and have been for years. I know many people here will remember Ned Lamont.
In a few yrs when Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee for President I predict all this third party talk you and Joyce like to engage in will miraculously vanish!
““I wouldn’t say I support him. I would say I will vote for him.” – Michael Moore”
My sentiments exactly.
Recently I wrote about Jennifer Granholm accusing people of being an “accomplice” to a Pres. Romney outcome, which is what angels81 is doing in this thread.
People responded virulently to that tactic and I heard a lot of reactions. This is the 21st century and thinking people recoil at that stuff. Granholm is smarter than that. It’s just lazy.
I put Moore’s comment up, because it’s much more honest and powerful. It has the added impact of empathizing with Democrats like you, secularh.
After all, it doesn’t matter why you vote for Obama in the end. A vote is a vote.
Third party for me this year. Jill Stein for President !! I voted for Democrats since I began voting when I turned 18. I am young, somewhat, My first vote went to John Kerry/John Edwards, then to President Obama, now I am not about to give my vote to President Obama. For senate race in my state, we have a third party called the Mountian Party, I will choose candidates from it. The Presidental race does not look good for the GOP right now no wonder, just look at their candidate, but they do seem more energized when it comes to Senate and House seats, I would not be suprised if they kept the House and got a majority or close to the Senate because of all the blue-dogs that are retiring and the ones that are in trouble like the Senator in Missouri and other conserative states. We could end up with a very partisan split government again.
The Republicans, Tea Party and the right wing fascists thank you for you voting for those third party candidates. We are very thankful that you will be helping us take total control of this great government and bringing in the 4th reich.
You know what? In a lot of states it will not matter. Save the lectures of people who live in swing states who actually have a vote that matters. This year there is 9 swing states and all the money and activity is going there. I live in GA. Mitt Romney could be the devil and they would still vote for him here in GA.
LOL, the tea partiers et all can thank you and all others enamored of Obama’s repub-lite approach. At least voting 3rd party is voting FOR something. The best you can say about your vote is it’s anti-Romney. How stunningly optimistic.
Your fear-mongering has no power this election, but thanks for playing.
fairmindedindependent 03 August 2012 at 8:00 pm
I continue to be amazed people think YOUR vote is due some politician, whatever the party, when YOU have decided they haven’t earned it.
Voting third party, whoever chooses to do so, is the fault of politicians not the voter.
It’s so elementary and easy to understand.
What you’re doing makes sense to YOU, just like Obama supporters believe voting for Obama is important.
People should respect each person’s vote, which is theirs to make.
AMEN!!!!!
Thanks Taylor !! People are following party loyality instead of following their principles and its really sad.
Solo why do you make excuses for Obama who’s record has been abysmal? He’s pure Reagan Republican. Are you actually a Reagan Republican instead of a Dem?
He is not a Regan republican, he’s a Clinton democrat.
He’s to the right of Clinton. Obama threw women under the bus for Stupak. His HCR is Bob Dole’s from ’96 straight out of the Heritage Foundation. I guess we could have had this back in ’96 if Bill Clinton had wanted to pass Bob Dole’s heathcare package.
You are just being ridiculous. Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are all cut from the same political cloth. They are all centrist Democrats!
The thing is you always knew that with Clinton which is my point but he’s still to the left of Obama ironically. Clinton was and is a centrist but Obama si more Reagan Republican than centrist.
The Clintons had nothing on Obama when it comes to lulling whatever used to be the left into silent hibernation.
Without the political moxie~
His record has been abysmal? Do you think that all those millions people out there that have health insurance now share that opinion? Do you think the relatives of Bin Laden’s victims share that opinion? How about the people who work for GM, Chrysler and their suppliers? I am not making excuses I just choose to live in the real world. You should try it sometime!
Angels81–if Obama had 75 Democrats in the Senate I would still be hearing the same excuses.. Plenty of presidents have been able to get their agenda passed with less than 60 of their own party or even when dealing with the opposition party. The problem is that Obama just does not care about policy. He just wants to check the box and that’s why despite a crazy GOP the race is tied.
It is not the same old excuse, no president has had a republican party like Obama has had. The house and the senate republicans have obstructed everything that the president has tried to do. With the super majority rule in effect in the senate everything democrats or the president has tried to do has been stopped. Clinton had the house obstruction, but had enough moderate republicans in the senate to get things done. We have not seen anything like what is going on now in congress in my lifetime.
The Republicans have been this crazy for 20 years now. I don’t know why anyone thinks Obama has it any different. You don’t remember Pat Buchanan’s pushing the culture war envelope back and the ’92 GOP convention? Or Pat Roberson? Or all.the crazy conspiracy theories they were shopping all the time back in the 90′s. Heck, Bill Clinton had to deal with IMPEACHMENT something Obama has not had to do. So don’t tell me that this group of Republicans is any crazier than they have been. The reason Clinton could get things done is because he went out and sold the policy to the public something Obama does not either have the ability to do or the desire to do. There’s the same two Maine Republicans there that were back there in the 90′s and even they won’t vote for what Obama is putting forth because they know there’s going to be no repercussions to voting against anything Obama puts up because they know he will not fight. Oh, Obama has it so hard is something I have no patience for. If Obama did not want to do the job, he should not have run for President and any president with any kind of political smarts would know that you cannot count on having your party in control after the mid year elections. Only Obama would think that when asked about ’94 wold say the difference is “me”. Well, how did that one turn out? Seems to me pretty badly.
I don’t know what country you have been living in for the past twenty years, but to say republicans have been this bad all along is pure fantasy.
Nope. It’s fact.
Ga6thDem 03 August 2012 at 9:13 pm
People have a short and hazy memory, Ga6thDem.
Chief Justice Rehnquist packed the OIC preparing for Clinton. I run it down in my book.
Before that, Rep. Henry Hyde’s reaction to Roe v. Wade was the Hyde Amendment. It wasn’t until Pres. Obama that Hyde became codified into law through ACA; before that time it was only a budget item. That’s not a small thing. What Democrats did on that was unacceptable and Obama’s executive order was unnecessary, with the so-called progressive pro-choice caucus not doing squat.
What a Republican and Tea Party controlled Congress would do is frightening to comprehend.
People also forget Ken Starr and what he did to Susan McDougal; that he was unethical when his people braced Lewinski. We’re talking about impeaching the president of the United States for lying about a consensual relationship. That people don’t think that was as frightening as anything in modern history boggles the mind.
But the Congress today is worse than it’s ever been. It’s tough to deny that.
If Republicans take the Senate it could get really bad and I mean awful, but in a wholly different way, because people like Cruz out of Texas are dangerous when put together with Rand Paul, Paul Ryan, et al.
This is a pretty serious election, so everyone needs to appreciate what’s at stake. It’s why I put up Moore’s quote. A LOT of progressives will hold their nose & vote Obama this year, like secularh above. It’s easy to see why they’re choosing this path.
But choosing to be on the outside, as Joyce and others are doing, makes equal sense, because as angels81 proves below, the insanity continues to offer up the same thing over and over again. How is that going to change if people’s voting patterns don’t, making politicians and political parties pay for their lack of principles?
That’s how the Tea Party gained traction and power (which I’ve been writing about for years).
Unless “the left” learns this lesson, which reading some of the comments here reveals you aren’t, progressives will never gain any power, because no one will ever take you seriously.
I guess the difference between me and some here is that I have always seen Obama for what he is, the lesser of two evils. I am 64 years old and I have always been voting the lesser of two evils. I understand that it has always been that way throughout history because politics has always been a game of power and power corrupts. The last time someone came along and was truly for the people they nailed him to a cross. I’ll vote for Obama because he has a chance of winning and he won’t fuck me as bad as the other guy.
Oh, come on.
Most everyone who frequents this site has seen Barack Obama this way.
Held my nose in ’92,’96, and ’08. ’84 and ’88 I was glad to vote Democratic, but that was the last time. The choices keep getting worse, and as long as we continue to hold our noses, that trend will continue. Your vote for an incumbent says he did well enough.
It’s an emphatically true statement, which is proven by angels81 statement above.
On the other side, angels81 also has a point when he writes Obama “won’t fuck me as bad as the other guy,” but again, it leads back to the statement above.
It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, ensuring nothing will ever happen.
And what does reelecting Pres. Obama do for progressive economics and policy, let alone a foreign policy that represents anything beyond militarism?
Also remember, the “grand bargain” or something akin to it is coming regardless of whether Obama or Romney wins.
Appreciate most kept the recriminations out of it. It’s a scurrilous tactic that doesn’t belong in a serious debate.
As do I. Things are going to get worse regardless. What we’re really arguing about here is the way to reverse that trend.
Reforming the Democratic Party from within is a fool’s errand as long as it is successful. Successful organizations don’t stop doing the things that profit them, ever. They will only change when they’re no longer working. In politics, “no longer working” means that they’re no longer winning enough elections to stay in power. Until that day dawns, anyone trying to make the organization change itself will be treated as a fool, and either ignored or made unwelcome.
Only motivation provided from outside can make that happen. The will may need to come from within, but it’s not going to be enough until it’s clear that the old ways aren’t working. That lesson will only hit home when progressive voters go elsewhere in enough numbers to matter.
I think if Obama had fought the GOP instead of conceding to them he would have much less of a problem. I mean Obama would garner some votes simply because he stopped the GOP from crazy which I think is what got a lot of people to vote for Clinton too–you knew that Clinton had a line that he would not cross but with Obama you don’t. You can’t rely on him to actually defend anything. He gave the tea party 98 percent of of what they wanted back in ’10 when he did not have to.
Maybe the American voter needs to see what they have wrought, what their inattention has created, how their being uninformed and disinterested has ruined theirs and everybody else’s lives. Perhaps it’s time for them to face the creature they created through their own selfishness and greed. GA6thDem was correct when he or she said the voters of Georgia would vote for Romney even if he were the devil; of course they will, they are ignorant and could not give a damn about the country. Nothing matters besides their pathetic little lives and their ugly little prejudices. You can argue all you want about which candidate sucks more, which party eats shit more, which rich prick has any humanity; it does not matter. It is and always has been the American voter that is the greatest evil. They are evil by way of their own stupidity. They had everything they could want when compared to the rest of the world, but it was not good enough. The election in 2000 never should have been so close; Bush never should have been re-elected; I was not a Clinton supporter but Obama never should have been elected. He was elected because he was what American’s wanted; a movie star. The two party system is corrupt and can not be salvaged. The only way out is through new parties. If the country must suffer for it’s own foolishness by living through four years of fascism; so be it.
I don’t give a rat’s hairy butt about a “lesser of two evils” vote. I will not support Democrats or Republicans in 2012 and beyond. And personally I welcome “The Forth Reich” with open arms. Perhaps then we will see what we’ve done and true change can happen (although it will be VERY painful and likely fatal for some). We’re too damn comfortable right now. And that comfort leads to acceptance of Big 2 group-think and lesser of two evils voting in my opinion. As I said before, Obama and Romney don’t know how to re-employ a workforce that has watched their livelihoods get off-shored, baked, steamed, and ultimately eliminated. They have NO vision or NO creative thinking skills on that basic point. And that goes for many in Congress as well. So I will continue to cast my third party vote with a smile on my face and a “I don’t give a damn what happens with THOSE two parties” look on my face. LOL!
OMG! “I welcome The Fourth Reich with open arms”? Yikes!
Sounds just like the the anarchists before the Russian revolution/catastrophe.
“the worse the better”
Rewrite!
LOL! Aww c’mon Solo and Sec. Y’all not jazz up for some REAL change that generates REAL change? The Great Depression generated ideas galore to get things back on track. But life was generally harder back in the day. So that’s all it took. But many of us are comfortable and comfortably numb. So we need insanity like a “Fourth Reich” threat to get the blood pumping. Get those REAL ideas out and acted upon. All this quaint Big 2 electoral college stuff is just foo-foo citizen action with a heavy dose of garbage in, garbage out.
Viva la something!
Sure thing, convince enough folks to vote third party candidates in and I’ll sit back and enjoy….somehow I just don’t think I need to go out and buy a new recliner though…..
Jesus, secularh, you just don’t get it.
I’m not sure the garbage is ever taken out, though at least the Tea Party is challenging their elite and making them hurt in the process. Little does the Tea Party know that they’re austerity fetish is part of the garbage!
“The left” is simply feckless.
What? I just told a gung ho third partist to get enough folks to vote the way he/she does and I’ll sit back and enjoy their administration? HOW is that not getting it? IF YOU CAN’T CONVINCE PEOPLE TO VOTE FOR YOU ,YOU AIN’T NEVER GONNA WIN AN ELECTION. Ms. marsh….I’m beginning to wonder if YOU “get it”.
Don’t know why I keep missing the capitol on Marsh?
Right, bring on the fourth reich seeing as the third reich really got the blood pumping. Maybe the fourth reich can even out do the third reich and kill more then 6 million people, that should really get the blood pumping.
I can see by your statement that history is not your strong suite.
Actually Angels…the third reich killed ALLOT more then six million…ALLOT more.
But then I just don’t get it.