Thom's spin on Alan Grayson's loss is wrong!

27 posts / 0 new

Thom just quoted Alan Grayson as saying the reason he lost was because Democrats stayed home on election day and Republicans came out to vote. Thus, Thom's conclusion, in effect: Lazy Democrats gave up, and that's who you blame not only for Alan Grayson's defeat but the Democrats' loss of the House too.

Wrong!!!

What Thom fails to think about is the REASON progressives stayed home—Obama's betrayal of his promises and the realization by progressives that Obama had snookered them, that is, behaved like a Democrat before the election, then changed to a Republican after the election. Thus, it was Obama's own fault that the Dems lost the House.

But the Obama White House, in looking at their loss of the House in 2010, concluded that THE COUNTRY HAD TURNED CONSERVATIVE, RATHER THAN REALIZING THEIR MISTAKE AND RECOGNIZING THE IMPORTANCE OF BEING TRUE TO THE SMALL "D" DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPLES OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY.

Rather than moving to the right, they needed to return to the true center, which is progressive. That way, they might have retained the passion of their progressive base.

As an activist citizen, I am tired of being held accountable for Obama's problems. Let him be the man he tells us he is. I am entitled to vote for a candidate with integrity.

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Comments

I have to agree with these comments, though I was very distressed to see Grayson lose since he's one of the best. Hopefully he will be back. In fact I would fully support Grayson running for president, or anumber of other candidates. Unless something changes radically, I will not be able to stomach voting for Obama.

kayakersandcat
Joined:
Jul. 13, 2011 3:36 pm

Grayson was Koched. We also need to remember that all the news about the Obama accomplishments emerged after the 2010 election and showed up in the lame duck session. Anger, good sneaky pr and cash defeated Grayson despite his ability to articulate a populist message. He is not retired or being eclipsed.

People have also had some time to see the Tea Party at work. The ugly anti-Obama tone offends those who value civility, and the Adult in the Room may appeal to more than I think. Personally, I think people would respond more to standing up to the bullies than to trying to help them become decent human beings in some "bi-partisan" facade.

If Obama gets out of the DC Daze, he could exploit the bad behavior of those he reached out to in the attempt to heal. Instead of being the dupe of the bullies, he could regain the excellent sniper perch in the moral high ground. But he has to draw the lines to be effective instead of blur the message.

DRC's picture
DRC
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Zenzoe:

Thom just quoted Alan Grayson as saying the reason he lost was because Democrats stayed home on election day and Republicans came out to vote. Thus, Thom's conclusion, in effect: Lazy Democrats gave up, and that's who you blame not only for Alan Grayson's defeat but the Democrats' loss of the House too.

Wrong!!!

What Thom fails to think about is the REASON progressives stayed home—Obama's betrayal of his promises and the realization by progressives that Obama had snookered them, that is, behaved like a Democrat before the election, then changed to a Republican after the election. Thus, it was Obama's own fault that the Dems lost the House.

But the Obama White House, in looking at their loss of the House in 2010, concluded that THE COUNTRY HAD TURNED CONSERVATIVE, RATHER THAN REALIZING THEIR MISTAKE AND RECOGNIZING THE IMPORTANCE OF BEING TRUE TO THE SMALL "D" DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPLES OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY.

Rather than moving to the right, they needed to return to the true center, which is progressive. That way, they might have retained the passion of their progressive base.

As an activist citizen, I am tired of being held accountable for Obama's problems. Let him be the man he tells us he is. I am entitled to vote for a candidate with integrity.

This is exactly what I was thinking too.

I'm started to get worried that Thom is becoming a Obama apologist just like Randi Rhodes. It's almost like he's telling us to pick the lesser of two evils because one is somehow where our solution lies. I feel like he's telling us to forget about the charade being played on us.

When Thom responded to a caller earlier in the show who asked if Thom thought and he empathetically said (paraphrased), "No. I think he is a progressive leaning centrist", I couldn't believe it. I don't want Thom to be another apologist for Obama because I see him as a true liberal/progressive.

Supreme Court nominations notwithstanding, I will not vote for Obama unless he shows through his actions that he is not a corporate whore.

Dominic C
Joined:
Jun. 27, 2011 10:39 am
Quote Zenzoe: What Thom fails to think about is the REASON progressives stayed home—Obama's betrayal of his promises and the realization by progressives that Obama had snookered them, that is, behaved like a Democrat before the election, then changed to a Republican after the election. Thus, it was Obama's own fault that the Dems lost the House.

But the Obama White House, in looking at their loss of the House in 2010, concluded that THE COUNTRY HAD TURNED CONSERVATIVE, RATHER THAN REALIZING THEIR MISTAKE AND RECOGNIZING THE IMPORTANCE OF BEING TRUE TO THE SMALL "D" DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPLES OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY.

Rather than moving to the right, they needed to return to the true center, which is progressive. That way, they might have retained the passion of their progressive base.

And how'd staying home because Obama wasn't "small d democratic enough" work out for us? Passion aside, those who stayed home, for WHATEVER reason, really have nobody to blame for our current mess than themselves. This was a COMPLETELY PREDICTABLE result of low Democratic turnout. When Obama took office, as when FDR did, he said "Now that you've put me here, MAKE ME do what you want done". We've done just the opposite, and therefore, so has he.

mstaggerlee's picture
mstaggerlee
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

I would also like to see Grayson run for President.

Grayson's district was largely Republican, and that's another thing to remember. Plus, as far as I can remember, Obama did not campaign for, nor support, Grayson's campaign. If anybody can find a link disputing this, I'd like to see it. (Anyway, an endorsement from Obama at the time wasn't helping candidates much.)

To support one of DRC's points re "Koched," Alan Grayson on the subject: " The sewer money advertising that was run against me by special interests and lobbyists, who didn’t even have to give their names. They said Alan Grayson is a liar, Alan Grayson’s a loudmouth, Alan Grayson’s a national embarrassment, Alan Grayson is a dog, and Alan Grayson is an evil clown. They actually had somebody who sort of looked a little bit like me dressed up like a clown, walking around on the screen for 28 seconds before the disclosure. You know, honestly, I don’t think … [Laughter, inaudible] should be complaining about my ads, OK? According to Politico, 20 percent of all the negative ads from the lobbyists in the entire country ran against me." http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/alan_grayson_tells_it_like_it_is_20110721/

Grayson is an ethical, fine progressive. I'm hoping his next election will turn out better. He might have a Democratic district for a change.

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Zenzoe: I would also like to see Grayson run for President.

Grayson is an ethical, fine progressive. I'm hoping his next election will turn out better. He might have a Democratic district for a change.

I agree that Alan Grayson could be a fine president - someday. But what you're hoping for isn't too likely, Zenzoe - districting is a state function, and Rick Scott will go out of his way to make sure Grayson's district either vanishes, or is absolutely hostile to him. Just like Kasich has done to Kucinich in Ohio.

Also - historically, when a sitting President, from EITHER party, is primaried, two things have happenned.

1) After an ugly battle, the incumbent wins his party's nomination.

2) He then proceeds to lose the general election.

The likely results of those 2 outcomes -

3) mstaggerlee & wife pack their bags, sell the house (yeah - good luck with THAT!) and depart for a nation to be named later.

mstaggerlee's picture
mstaggerlee
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

There are actually 4 different groups of people here.

1. People who will hold their nose and vote for Obama again because he is our only hope against fascism. I am one. We are wrong. We will not surive another term, and we certainly will not survive a fascist winning in '16. To those people I say, vote as progressive as possible all the way down the ballot and pray, and do not - do not - support any "compromises" out of fear.

2. People who simply will not vote for Obama regardless of the consequences. Since there are not enough of you to win a primary, at least not if no one runs against him, then the result will be, at best, the same. To those people I say, the best thing you can do is at least vote for progressives down the ballot and pray. Stay home and they will bomb your home. Or find a candidate and convince him to run.

3. People who will vote against Obama because they are fascist supporters. To you I say nothing. (under this name)

4. People who support Obama. To you I say, get a brain before it is too late, except that it already is.

doh1304's picture
doh1304
Joined:
Dec. 6, 2010 10:49 am
Quote mstaggerlee:
Quote Zenzoe: What Thom fails to think about is the REASON progressives stayed home—Obama's betrayal of his promises and the realization by progressives that Obama had snookered them, that is, behaved like a Democrat before the election, then changed to a Republican after the election. Thus, it was Obama's own fault that the Dems lost the House.

But the Obama White House, in looking at their loss of the House in 2010, concluded that THE COUNTRY HAD TURNED CONSERVATIVE, RATHER THAN REALIZING THEIR MISTAKE AND RECOGNIZING THE IMPORTANCE OF BEING TRUE TO THE SMALL "D" DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPLES OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY.

Rather than moving to the right, they needed to return to the true center, which is progressive. That way, they might have retained the passion of their progressive base.

And how'd staying home because Obama wasn't "small d democratic enough" work out for us? Passion aside, those who stayed home, for WHATEVER reason, really have nobody to blame for our current mess than themselves. This was a COMPLETELY PREDICTABLE result of low Democratic turnout. When Obama took office, as when FDR did, he said "Now that you've put me here, MAKE ME do what you want done". We've done just the opposite, and therefore, so has he.

For the record I voted in 2010 and have voted in every election since 1983. I write, call, and do what I can try to do to have my voice heard.

I for one along with many others here have come to the realization that we are dealing with a "good cop. bad cop" situation and that the Dems are basically as compromised to the fascist corporatists as the Repubs.

I saw this writing on the wall nearly 25 years ago and hence quit becoming a Democrat. If you have read some of my posts you will see that my opinion is that we have a one party government that has two "wings"- the fascist wing and the neo-con wing who have the same agenda in the end.

That is why the progressive caucus is so scorned by the DNC leadership.

Obama never intended to govern as a progressive and never will. Time to wake up and smell the napalm.

Dominic C
Joined:
Jun. 27, 2011 10:39 am

YEP. You're right.

Democrats did not show up in 2010 BECAUSE OBAMA CAVED AGAIN AND AGAIN and the Dems were disillusioned - NOT because "we got lazy" and thought the job was done. Remember how Rand Paul got elected to Kennedy's seat?

Thom is rewriting history...

Dacktyl's picture
Dacktyl
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote mstaggerlee:
Quote Zenzoe: I would also like to see Grayson run for President.

Grayson is an ethical, fine progressive. I'm hoping his next election will turn out better. He might have a Democratic district for a change.

I agree that Alan Grayson could be a fine president - someday. But what you're hoping for isn't too likely, Zenzoe -

Don't worry, staggerlee, I am not so naive or deluded to think my hopes are likely. I was simply expressing those hopes out loud, so to speak.

What boggles my mind is the cognitive dissonance practiced by many progressives—how they know about Obama's dismal record on human rights; they know he has packed his economic team with neo-cons and free-market capitalists, and his team of advisors and cabinet with Wall Street banking CEOs (aside from Eliz. Warren, whom he tossed aside); they see his assassination policy, the drones, the war escalations, his capitulations to the worst right-wing in American history; his eloquent style betrayed by the substance of his choices, the crushing influence and power of money in politics today...and on and on...and yet they preach about how Obama said we must make him do it, as if there's an ounce of possibility forcing anything on this power elite. How much has to be denied to continue such a fantasy! How much has to be forgotten! Rahm Emanuel told us how much respect the Obama White House has for progressives—"f**k'n retards." Wasn't that it? How easily we delude ourselves despite such plain, easily comprehended talk.

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Zenzoe:

How much has to be forgotten! Rahm Emanuel told us how much respect the Obama White House has for progressives—"f**k'n retards." Wasn't that it? How easily we delude ourselves despite such plain, easily comprehended talk.

This to me was a major eye opener. Emanuel was only speaking what Obama was thinking.

Dominic C
Joined:
Jun. 27, 2011 10:39 am

Clinton ended welfare programs, brought in NAFTA and the Telecommunications act; Obama puts Social Security and Medicare on the chopping block (potentially, with this "catfood commission."), fails to close Guantanamo, fails to raise taxes on the rich, okays extra-judicial assassinations of American citizens abroad, fails to end the wars and do something about climate change, etc. The question becomes, with Democratic friends like that, why worry about our Republican "enemies?" Maybe it would be better to have a Republican in the presidency, so that the Dems can reincarnate as true Democrats? Just wondering. I know it's treason, but damn.

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Thom doubled down on this "lazy Dem" meme again today.... Playing Grayson’s clip, but then saying he disagreed that Dem voters “went on strike.”

Well, Thom… Again… the Democrats weren’t “lazy” in 2010 – they were demoralized and unmotivated to get off their butts after Obama’s incessant and chronic capitulation.

Why don’t you get Grayson back on the air to clarify? I think you’re taking his words out of context, twisting them and then using them as a way to again EXCUSE Obama for his lack of leadership.

Dacktyl's picture
Dacktyl
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Everybody ought to examine the campaign ads that Grayson ran in his last congressional run. I was a big fan but he was just like everybody else with untrue attack ads against his opponent. Yes, I still believed in his politics but definitely lost faith in his ethics. It seems that power corrupts Democrats also.

Maybe Democratic voters weren't lazy...they just couldn't support him anymore. When are the Dems going to stop shooting themselves in the foot?

http://factcheck.org/2010/09/patriotism-falsely-impugned/

http://www.factcheck.org/2010/09/rep-grayson-lowers-the-bar/

cynthiash's picture
cynthiash
Joined:
Aug. 3, 2011 11:36 am
Quote cynthiash:

Everybody ought to examine the campaign ads that Grayson ran in his last congressional run. I was a big fan but he was just like everybody else with untrue attack ads against his opponent. Yes, I still believed in his politics but definitely lost faith in his ethics. It seems that power corrupts Democrats also.

Maybe Democratic voters weren't lazy...they just couldn't support him anymore. When are the Dems going to stop shooting themselves in the foot?

http://factcheck.org/2010/09/patriotism-falsely-impugned/

http://www.factcheck.org/2010/09/rep-grayson-lowers-the-bar/

That's sad to see. I'm surprised. So much for A.G.'s "integrity."

Cynthiash's information, though, only serves to further undermine the notion that Grayson lost because of lazy Democrats. As usual, the story has more complexity than the blaming of one faction can explain.

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

I think Thom would make the same point again. Everyone & every candidate has their flaws - that doesn't mean the Democrats should not have turned out for him. 60% of the Republicans showed up for this election and only 40% of the Dems. The world isn't black and white - there are shades of greys - IMHO.

louisehartmann's picture
louisehartmann
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote louisehartmann:

I think Thom would make the same point again. Everyone & every candidate has their flaws - that doesn't mean the Democrats should not have turned out for him. 60% of the Republicans showed up for this election and only 40% of the Dems. The world isn't black and white - there are shades of greys - IMHO.

Quote Dacktyl:

Democrats did not show up in 2010 BECAUSE OBAMA CAVED AGAIN AND AGAIN and the Dems were disillusioned - NOT because "we got lazy" and thought the job was done. Remember how Rand Paul got elected to Kennedy's seat?

With all due respect to Thom, I adhere to the sentiment above to why the Democratic turnout was so dismal.

As far as your comments regarding shades of grey I agree wholeheartedly with you Louise. I believe that one of the hallmarks of being a progressive is to be able to objectively see the world in realtive terms.

Dominic C
Joined:
Jun. 27, 2011 10:39 am

I really believe that many people in this country have a poor educational background and don't understand the power of Congress or even realize that it is a seperate branch of government than is the executive branch. Voting for a House member or U.S. Senator is not the same thing as voting for the president. In a non-presidential election, there are state politicians, including members of the Wisconsin General Assembly, who are running for office. To a considerable degree, the state government deal with different issues than does the federal government. People are just so apathetic, selfish, and misinformed that it is easier to criticize Obama than to read the local newspaper and vote for lawmakers and state officials.

Robindell's picture
Robindell
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

On Daniel Webster and the fact check, fact check got it wrong. While the video in question shows Webster making the argument saying "you shouldn't pray for this", Grayson's attack was about how Webster views women. The video shows Webster quoting from the Bible.
Now either Webster does not agree with the Bible or the attack was correct. Anyone who missed that point is as obtuse as Factcheck.

Phaedrus76's picture
Phaedrus76
Joined:
Sep. 14, 2010 8:21 pm
Quote Robindell:

I really believe that many people in this country have a poor educational background and don't understand the power of Congress or even realize that it is a seperate branch of government than is the executive branch. Voting for a House member or U.S. Senator is not the same thing as voting for the president. In a non-presidential election, there are state politicians, including members of the Wisconsin General Assembly, who are running for office. To a considerable degree, the state government deal with different issues than does the federal government. People are just so apathetic, selfish, and misinformed that it is easier to criticize Obama than to read the local newspaper and vote for lawmakers and state officials.

What have you read here that makes you think progressives like myself are poorly educated or do not understand how the political machinery works in our system of government? Where do you get the idea that we don't vote or support local level politics? Your statement is highly confusing, problematic, and condescending since you attribute criticisms of Obama to people being apathetic, selfish, and misinformed.

I would wager to say that EVERY progressive here that has criticized the Obama administration fully understands how the government works at the ferderal, state, and local levels and the different undercurrents that are associated with each. If you have taken the time to read the various threads and input by the posters, you should quickly see that most (especially the most liberal and progressive) are highly knowledgeable and well educated.

For instance, we all understand the challenges in Wisconsin are far different that the challenges in California and those in NYC different from those is Omaha, NE., and those at the federal level differ greatly form those at the state or local level. Athough I haven't read about this, I suspect that most of us understand that nature of the party apparatus may differ greatly at every level of government and vary greatly upon the locality in question.

If you want to call people critical of him with the labels you are applying you need to take the time to break down our NUMEROUS arguments and address them with your points in a logical manner before you assume that we are all one way or another.

If you want to be an apologist for Obama that's fine but no need to name call those of us critical of his policies.

ALL OF US HERE understand that although he was given a majority in the House and Senate there were hinderances in getting legislation passed dues to not having 60 consistent votes to rely on to get by any Republican obstruction but that topic has been well covered. We are critical of him knowing full well what sort of challenges he has faced and not because we are ignorant of how the repective bodies of government function.

Dominic C
Joined:
Jun. 27, 2011 10:39 am
Quote louisehartmann:

I think Thom would make the same point again. Everyone & every candidate has their flaws - that doesn't mean the Democrats should not have turned out for him. 60% of the Republicans showed up for this election and only 40% of the Dems. The world isn't black and white - there are shades of greys - IMHO.

Respectfully, Louise, my objection to Thom's blaming progressive voters for either Grayson's defeat, or the general Democratic losses across the nation in 2010, by Thom's saying simplistically, "The Republicans voted; the Democrats didn't," is precisely because "the world isn't black and white" like that; that is, the issue wasn't and isn't all that simple. Many factors caused the 2010 elections' losses for the Dems, not just "lazy democrats." Not least of those factors would be the discouraging facts of Obama's performance as President.

For example, the district went for Bush in both 2000 and 2004. It often goes for Republicans. It was only a massive voter registration drive by Democrats in 2008 that swept in both Obama and Grayson. Who knows what happened with the 2010 election, but much of it had to do with massive negative ads and media attention directed against Grayson. That's MASSIVE corporate funding, which probably convinced many low-information voters to stay home, or vote for the Repugnant. Without the Obama-effect (mass hypnosis and intoxication over his charisma) in 2010, such a district wasn't going to pull it off again, especially when Obama didn't come out to endorse Grayson (as far as I know).

Given how the deck is stacked against healthy democracy in this society, from corporate media, to the Kochs, to the exclusion of third party candidates in debates, to voter suppression tactics, to voting machines, to inadequate schooling in civics, and on and on, holding voters responsible for election results just seems, well, unfair and cruel. It isn't that Thom shouldn't encourage his audience to be active; it's just that he shouldn't assume we aren't active and don't vote—it's insulting. He should give us a break, already. ;-)

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Greyson had a national target on him, lost by a narrow margin, and (most importantly) is going to be back in 2012. Of course it wasn't the real progressives who are on this site that stayed home, it was the newbies and occasional voters who don't really pay that much attention, and found it hard to be interested in a mid-term election due to insufficient education. Also, the Republican national 2010 campaign started over a year before the election, while Obama really held off until September. This didn't work for Kerry, and it didn't work for Obama's midterm.

I know this triangulation bulls*** is frustrating, but the Constitution ends up favoring 2 parties, and while the Democrats can be ineffective, if we get enough of a majority we can accomplish much. The Republicans have become so much worse. I'd suggest that you look into supporting your local or state party to get more progressive cancidates into the primaries. As Thom noted today, that is what the far-right did to take over the Republican party.

Like it or not, our system only really supports 2 parties, and that is not going to change any time soon, especailly if progressives divide and waste their efforts. Like it or not, Obama is our standard bearer, we fell for him, and we need to do what we can to make him succeed despite the efforts of the far Right to make him fail. If not us, who? If not now, when?

So what can we do? Take over your local Demcratic precinct committee. Network. Get media attention. Get progressives elected in your area or state, or at least put them up against the local Republican if you live in a Red district. If progressives in nearby districts seem to have a chance, help them out. Volunteer, network, contribute. If you don't like what is going on nationally, go local - see my post at http://www.thomhartmann.com/forum/2011/08/step-1-precinct-committee-chairman-step-2-organize-groups-step-3-media-coverage#comment-90936

mattfiller's picture
mattfiller
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Dominic C:

Supreme Court nominations notwithstanding, I will not vote for Obama unless he shows through his actions that he is not a corporate whore.

Dominic C: I share your frustration. However, as painful as it will be to vote for Obama, we have to keep our eyes on the prize. The supreme court nominations made by Obama will be FAR better than those made by ANY tea party republican. At least the school yard bully hasn't been made principal yet. Just think how bad it would be if a bully ran the whole school in every aspect.

President Obama once said in response to some question about his basically staying on task with the democratic agenda that we'd have to "make him." Meaning we'd have to stay on his case. I don't know if he forsaw the upcoming right swing and knew the difficulty he'd have fighting against it or what, but we need to "make him" as much as possible. This means we have to keep up the pressure. This doesn't prevent us from looking for something better or trying to cultivate a better candidate, but until we do, we need to work with what we've got. Believe me, I know this is a bitter pill, but if you sit on your butt, you will realize, too late, that what you had was a lot better. Again, this doesn't mean Obama is the best you can do, but that he's an interim until we can do better. Keep those eyes up and keep active. Neither despair nor apathy is an option. Peace.

scriber1's picture
scriber1
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Yep, you nailed it.

That's exactly right. Has Grayson ever appologized for this? I think he was winning unitl he pulled that stunt.

One other thing that Thom, and everyone, has overlooked is Obama's handling of housing. Being that florida was one of the hardest hit states, as well as one of the states with the most banking fraud on the way up and on the way down, his failure to address the housing crises with anything other than a cover up probably did not help.

Obama's supply side position on housing was that he did not want to reward people who bought homes that they could not afford. That number was origionaly 1 in 12, before the job losses and wiped out pension plans. He seems to forget about the other 11 home owners who put down 10 to 20% and were doing the right thing before the bottom fell out.

Add to that his willingness to reward those who caused this mess with key jobs in goverment or massive bonuses, rather than jail time, and no one should be suprised about the lack of support. None was deserved.

Thom is right about one thing, he has the smartest flock out there. What's even better is that they are not afraid to call him out when he is dead wrong.

babbaramma's picture
babbaramma
Joined:
Apr. 6, 2010 6:21 pm

I hope in the end that I am totally wrong about the whole situation and will gladly admit to it if that's the case.

That being said, I am not going to give up the fight against the neocon Teabaggers as they are truly the enemy in my mind.

The Repugnicans and their Teabag wing has openly declared war on the majority of the people and I have never ran from a fight that was brought to me. I rarely start a fight but usually am the one ot finish it.

Also I don't believe in giving up. It's just never been part of my highly competitive nature.

The problem for me now is I really don't know the best course of action but I know it is not apathy nor despair.

Dominic C
Joined:
Jun. 27, 2011 10:39 am

Democrats stayed home because Obama pulled the rug out from under them in the time between January 2009 and November 2010.

He wasted an entire year "negotiating" with the dark side on his crappy-assed Obamacare that was all agreed to beforehand with no single-payer, no public option.

His stimulus was too small and loaded with tax cuts, he reduced the FICA tax on workers tieing Social Security to the National Debt. He put together a conservative Simpson-Bowles Commission to gut Social Security.

And Thom engages in a blame the victim (democratic voters) strategy of "she shouldn't have worn that dress" (it's democratic voters' fault that we ended up with a Republican Congress)

Hey Thom, take your Obama knee pads off - it's unbecoming of your intellect.

matmar83's picture
matmar83
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Currently Chatting

Why the Web of Life is Dying...

Could you survive with just half of your organs? Think about it. What if you had just half your brain, one kidney, half of your heart, one lung, half a liver and only half of your skin? It would be pretty hard to survive right? Sure, you could survive losing just one kidney or half of your liver, but at some point, losing pieces from all of your organs would be too much and you would die.

Powered by Pressflow, an open source content management system