Do Democrats Deserve Re-Election in 2012?

[Ashmoria]

posting on iphone? the word you were (probably) looking for is deluded.

it is indeed quite hard to get the car out of the ditch when some people are standing on the brake pedal.

It's also difficult when other people are standing in the car's way.

and others are waving their arms giving driving directions that lead back to the ditch.

[Kormanthor]

they deserve to take the entire house and every senate seat that is up for grabs.

No they don't

[Gauthier]

they deserve to take the entire house and every senate seat that is up for grabs.

No they don't

Better them than the Teabaggers.

[Ashmoria]

they deserve to take the entire house and every senate seat that is up for grabs.

No they don't

the republicans need a severe punishment after putting us through this fucking nightmare. if they push us off the cliff the party should be disbanded.

[Zoingo]

i hate it when i have to try to retype my brilliant post. it seems like its never as brilliant the 2nd time around.

anyway

i have an actual answer to your question.

the president made those TV speeches for political purposes. it was obvious when eric cantor walked out of the vp debt talks that there would be no deal. but the president is running for re-election. all this public "compromising", pretending that he would be willing to cut entitlements, pretending that he would actually go against his party and public opinion was all POLITICS. he was never ever going to do it.

thats why boehner said negotiating with him was like working with jello. the rule was "nothing is agreed to until EVERYTHING is agreed to". that meant that the president could propose all sorts of things that didnt matter because the republicans could never agree to tax increases. it makes him look like the only reasonable man in government. that will help him get independent votes.

in the same way, mr boehner HAD TO put up that stupid bill on friday that had zero chance of getting passed in the senate. he was demonstrating to the tea partiers how stupid their no-compromise stance is. where he goes from here, im not sure. its either a clean debt ceiling raise or disaster.

Trolling through self aggrandizement?

The last time a President made a prime time address to the nation purely for political partisan attacks was....well...never. We had the address on the Challenger, 9/11, Columbia, Iran-Hostage Crisis, Malaise, The Economy, etc. and most of the content if not all was directly non-partisan. Instead, he wastes the nation's time telling people how big bad republicans are going to push seniors and children off of cliff and how he was the adult in the room.

I hope you realize this, but you have definitely laid out the counterargument that Obama is only on the campaign trail and putting himself above actually fixing the problem...admittedly both sides are taking it to some degree, but for a presidential bid the tactic is a disaster to win moderates. The rule "nothing is agreed to until everything is agreed to" is just plain bs. If that was the case, the Democratic party would still be shooting down bills until they contain tax increases. And in case you haven't noticed, Obama hasn't exactly wooed independents by using politically polled terms like "balanced approach" to bring them back to his camp. As for Boehner's revised bill, it is an irrelevant comparison considering everyone knew what was in it before amending it.

The choice is a compromise or sitting on our hands, a clean debt increase vote would not get through Congress.

OK, we'll be unable to pay all of our obligations, be forced to cut 40% of discretionary spending overnight (causing us to lose 10% of our GDP within one or two weeks) and then, if the debt ceiling isn't raised within 3 or 4 months, then we default.

That's still REALLY, REALLY bad.

Exactly how does cutting discretionary spending mean that we will loose 10% of our Gross Domestic Product? Government spending =/= GDP. The only way we can default is if we A) owe more on interest payments to our debt than we can pay for with revenue or B) refuse to pay it.

Not paying for these things is bad, but continuing to spend 1.4 Trillion more than we take in is even worse.

[Ararna]

No, but the only Republicans who deserve it more are not going to win the primaries, so Obama is the best who has a chance to win.

[Rhodmhire]

I can't speak for every Democrat in the House of Representatives or those 30-some who are up for re-election in the Senate.

In general? They've put up with some serious shit since the Midterms, so maybe it'd be nice to throw a fair amount some bones.

Do I think every Democrat deserves re-election, though? Hell no, I'm sure there are plenty who are not good at what they do, probably a good few who could be substituted with other, better Democrats.

But really, based on what little I've been keeping up with since the Tea Party emerged, I'd prefer a Red House and a saguine Senate composed of non-Tea Party Republicans versus what we have now.

The old Republicans weren't the best, but they weren't bedraggled in insanity.

[Rhodmhire]

No, but the only Republicans who deserve it more are not going to win the primaries, so Obama is the best who has a chance to win.

Aren't we talking about the legislature? I assumed Democrats, plural, at least implied that it was part of the discussion.

[Vettrera]

People are failing to recognize that this is all bush's fault and that Obama was trying to get us back on track. He may not have done the best job at it but still. If you thunk that the party that got us into this mess (republicans) can get us out of it then you're diluted

posting on iphone? the word you were (probably) looking for is deluded.

it is indeed quite hard to get the car out of the ditch when some people are standing on the brake pedal.

IPod Touch Actually

[Zeppy]

I'd prefer a Red House...

Commie.

[Rhodmhire]

I'd prefer a Red House...

Commie.

Sounds like somebody's afraid of progress under the guise of old fashioned Republican politicians.

Ah, it's not matter. For finding out the secret encoded message, your assassination will be so swift as to give you no time to read the entire message I am composing.

[Zeppy]

Sounds like somebody's afraid of progress under the guise of old fashioned Republican politicians.

Ah, it's not matter. For finding out the secret encoded message, your assassination will be so swift as to give you no time to read the entire message I am composing.

When I was reading this, I heard a car backfire.

Damn you, Rhodmhire.

[Rhodmhire]

Sounds like somebody's afraid of progress under the guise of old fashioned Republican politicians.

Ah, it's not matter. For finding out the secret encoded message, your assassination will be so swift as to give you no time to read the entire message I am composing.

When I was reading this, I heard a car backfire.

Damn you, Rhodmhire.

Sounds like an omen to me.

My offer still stands. Progress awaits you, (unconfirmed) comrade.

[Atlantian Empire]

Hell Yes. They are doing the best they can with the crap they have to deal with. They deserve to sweep the Repukes out of office. I am voting Dem across the board for the first time since 2000.

[Ashmoria]

i hate it when i have to try to retype my brilliant post. it seems like its never as brilliant the 2nd time around.

anyway

i have an actual answer to your question.

the president made those TV speeches for political purposes. it was obvious when eric cantor walked out of the vp debt talks that there would be no deal. but the president is running for re-election. all this public "compromising", pretending that he would be willing to cut entitlements, pretending that he would actually go against his party and public opinion was all POLITICS. he was never ever going to do it.

thats why boehner said negotiating with him was like working with jello. the rule was "nothing is agreed to until EVERYTHING is agreed to". that meant that the president could propose all sorts of things that didnt matter because the republicans could never agree to tax increases. it makes him look like the only reasonable man in government. that will help him get independent votes.

in the same way, mr boehner HAD TO put up that stupid bill on friday that had zero chance of getting passed in the senate. he was demonstrating to the tea partiers how stupid their no-compromise stance is. where he goes from here, im not sure. its either a clean debt ceiling raise or disaster.

Trolling through self aggrandizement?

The last time a President made a prime time address to the nation purely for political partisan attacks was....well...never. We had the address on the Challenger, 9/11, Columbia, Iran-Hostage Crisis, Malaise, The Economy, etc. and most of the content if not all was directly non-partisan. Instead, he wastes the nation's time telling people how big bad republicans are going to push seniors and children off of cliff and how he was the adult in the room.

I hope you realize this, but you have definitely laid out the counterargument that Obama is only on the campaign trail and putting himself above actually fixing the problem...admittedly both sides are taking it to some degree, but for a presidential bid the tactic is a disaster to win moderates. The rule "nothing is agreed to until everything is agreed to" is just plain bs. If that was the case, the Democratic party would still be shooting down bills until they contain tax increases. And in case you haven't noticed, Obama hasn't exactly wooed independents by using politically polled terms like "balanced approach" to bring them back to his camp. As for Boehner's revised bill, it is an irrelevant comparison considering everyone knew what was in it before amending it.

The choice is a compromise or sitting on our hands, a clean debt increase vote would not get through Congress.

OK, we'll be unable to pay all of our obligations, be forced to cut 40% of discretionary spending overnight (causing us to lose 10% of our GDP within one or two weeks) and then, if the debt ceiling isn't raised within 3 or 4 months, then we default.

That's still REALLY, REALLY bad.

Exactly how does cutting discretionary spending mean that we will loose 10% of our Gross Domestic Product? Government spending =/= GDP. The only way we can default is if we A) owe more on interest payments to our debt than we can pay for with revenue or B) refuse to pay it.

Not paying for these things is bad, but continuing to spend 1.4 Trillion more than we take in is even worse.

no, really zoingo. THERE IS NO COMPROMISE THAT CAN BE MADE.

so the president is making some political points--meaning he is rubbing the republican's noses in their own shit and making sure the public knows it.

either the sane republicans come to their senses or we will slide into shame and disaster.

[Zinfedel]

The Democrats have caused enough trouble in our nation. I think the Republicans should take the White House and Senate!

[Tmutarakhan]

... As I see it, a massive Democratic defeat in 2012 wouldn't be a bad thing. It would bring Tea Party and Republican politicians to power in all branches of government; their policies are quite frankly idiotic, and they'll immediately screw the country into the ground (and hopefully rightfully get blamed for it)...

I fail to see the part here that is "not a bad thing". You are talking about deliberately destroying the country, so that people will start pointing fingers in the right direction? You do understand that damage can be done much more quickly than it can be repaired?

[The free thinking few]

The Democrats have caused enough trouble in our nation. I think the Republicans should take the White House and Senate!

Stop watching fox news and going on here. Its not a safe combination if you dont want to be flamed.

[Vettrera]

If I was president my press conferences would have more profanity then an episode of Jersey Shore. The republicans dont give a damn about us they just want to see Obama fail. And the democrats can't have their cake and eat it two unfortunately compromise is the only way out with all of these fools

[Brandenburg-Altmark]

Hey look, more people trotting out this bullshit about "the PPA and ACA aren't popular so obviously that means these people all dislike it for the same reason FOX News hates it!" The majority of people who don't approve of the health care reform we got don't approve specifically because they wanted a public option, not because "EBIL SOSHULISM!"

[Zoingo]

no, really zoingo. THERE IS NO COMPROMISE THAT CAN BE MADE.

so the president is making some political points--meaning he is rubbing the republican's noses in their own shit and making sure the public knows it.

either the sane republicans come to their senses or we will slide into shame and disaster.

That's being a bit pessimistic. But making political points out of an event which is historically nonpartisan only damages Obama's leadership projection and squanders any attempts to have voters see him as something other than a partisan hack.

A compromise will be reached no doubt, and most of the Republicans will realize that they have achieved enormous concessions in this round...its just a matter of time.

[Calimera]

Yes they do.
The Republicans are spredding a international USA hate. The democrats are doing better with the more pacific way of thinking. And I hear people say: Democrats are not professional etc. But if you look at one of the highest republican Sarah Palin, you will see she doesn't look father than today. Obama would be a great president for the second turn, or maybe the senator of New York. Obama iks making USA a more 'europian' state.

[Soxastan]

Fuck it, let's put the libertarians in charge. I hate both parties, they can't get anything done to better the country, only themselves.

[The Left-Libertarian Hippies]

Fuck it, let's put the libertarians in charge. I hate both parties, they can't get anything done to better the country, only themselves.

Libertarians, please...they're ok on social issues, but they are staunch neo-liberals on the economy. Personally, I don't like the Democrats, but would rather see them in there than Republicans or the Libertarians...I think a nice mix would be Democrats, Libs, and Greens, but that isn't ever going to happen.

[Sorratsin]

Not really, but considering the other party are the pawns of Sauron what choice do we have?