How Obama Can Win The Debate And The Election

It’s simple really.

The Obama campaign—with the help of the mainstream press—seems to have moved away from the one thing that was working against the slippery Mittens and was giving them a comfortable lead in the polls: the guy is a radical conservative who will radically transform the country into something only the Tea Party could love. Period.

They need to stop trying to paint the guy as a flip-flopper—everyone can see that by now—and tie him directly to the Republicans in Congress, particularly the Tea Party contingent, which he has supported in every conceivable way, including picking one of the most extreme VP candidates—and Tea Party favorite—in history.

Here, look at this graph from Gallup, published a month ago:

Look at those low, low, low numbers for Congress. Who could run against that bunch and lose? All Obama has to do to execute the winning strategy is to put the focus on extremists in Congress, including highlighting legislation that has come out of the Tea Party Republican House (as well as some that has come from Senate Republicans, like the radical Blunt amendment, which Romney was against before he had to backtrack), and then tie Romney’s flip-flopping body to that stake and watch him burn.

The President can point to some of the more extreme wackos in Congress—there is a rather large crop from which to choose—and ask the country: Do you want a president who will make these extremists even more powerful? Do you want to see Michele Bachmann and Allen West on your TVs every night, as they wield real power?

The president should say something like this during Tuesday’s debate, which I offer the campaign free of charge:

If you think Todd Akin is nuts, if you think his mind is frozen in Iron Age ignorance, then I’ve got news for you. There are a bunch of Republicans in the House who are as strange as he is. And Paul Ryan—who Mitt Romney chose to be his running mate— is one of them. He voted with Akin on a bill that originally tried to redefine rape, the old definition not quite good enough for these people. Ryan is as far right on the issue of a woman’s right to choose as Todd Akin. He really is that wildly far right. Yet Romney picked him to sit in the White House and help him make decisions, decisions that will affect you and your daughters.

Have you ever heard of Congressman Steve King? He’s an extremist nut from Iowa. Never mind that he doubts I am an American. Never mind that. Among other crazy, extremist things, he has suggested that states should still have the right to stop couples from having access to contraception. Yes, here in 2012 he thinks that. And Congressman King backed up Todd Akin recently and even added that he had never heard of a child getting pregnant from statutory rape or incest. Never heard of it.

And you can go on his website and find out that he would force women “requesting” an abortion—even women who were raped—to undergo ultrasounds “and review the life within her.” I’m not making that up. He would use government force to require women to do that. Go there and look for yourself. He’s serious. He’s deadly serious.

And you know what? Mitt Romney endorsed this guy! About this wacky congressman, about this Tea Party nutjob, Romney said, “I want him as my partner in Washington!”  Partners. That’s what you are voting for if you vote for Mitt Romney. A partner with extremists in Congress. Make no mistake about it.

In fact, the entire Republican Party has been captured by such people as Steve King. People like him run that party. Just a couple of days after Akin’s “legitimate rape” comments, the Republican Party voted to put in its official platform a provision that would prevent women who are raped or who are incest victims from choosing whether to have the rapist’s baby. They would force a woman, perhaps a relative of yours, to bear the child of her attacker. Do you really want to put these people in charge of the government? Huh?

And as for the economy. Things are turning around despite the fact Republicans in Congress all joined together in an effort to sabotage the economic recovery. They have admitted that. That’s not controversial. They got together on the night of my inauguration and plotted how they might keep me from getting this economy repaired and have a second term. I’m not kidding. I’m not making that up. You all need to know how extremist this bunch in Congress is. So extreme as to jeopardize the well-being of the country just so they can get complete control of it.

And as far as entitlement programs go, you all heard what Governor Romney thinks of half the country, you know, when he was standing in front of fat cats in Florida.  He thinks people don’t want to take care of themselves. He thinks half of the population wants to be dependent on government, even people who have earned their benefits, even people who worked hard for them and are truly entitled to them. He thinks that. He said that. And you know who else thinks that? Tea Party Republicans in Congress. That’s what the whole Tea Party movement was about, remember? Do you want these folks in charge of the government? Do you want these people, most of whom have never cared all that much for our safety net, deciding the future of Social Security and Medicare? Huh?

And finally, as far as foreign policy and national security goes, we have kept the country safe. We have taken down much of al Qaeda’s leadership, including bin Laden. I got us out of Iraq and I am winding down the war in Afghanistan. But you know what? That’s not good enough for some of these extremists in Congress. That’s not good enough for Governor Romney. They want us to get more involved in Syria. You’ve seen them on television. You’ve seen them say we’ve got to do more. They want to start a war—yes, I said it—they want us to start a war with Iran, before we have even given the punishing sanctions we put in place time to work. That’s what they want and that’s what they will get if you put them in charge.

Governor Romney has surrounded himself with advisers who got us into the mess in Iraq. You want more of that? Some in Congress, even the Governor himself, seem to want us to stay and stay and stay in Afghanistan. You want to keep troops there for another ten years? Huh?

Another adviser to the Romney campaign has called on Congress to authorize war with Iran. That was after the Republican leader in the Senate called for the same thing. I’m not kidding. He wanted a vote on the authorization of force against Iran. The leader of Republicans in the United States Senate called for “a more forceful approach.” More forceful.  What does that mean except war? Another Romney adviser, who worked for George W. Bush as U.N. ambassador, is not only itching for a war with Iran, he has suggested that Israel use nuclear weapons! Again, I’m not kidding. 

There are people in Congress who would have us in wars all over the place. They want to drastically increase our defense budget, even while giving tax cuts to rich people and cutting aid to the poor here at home. And the only thing stopping them right now is you, you the voter. That’s it. If you elect Mitt Romney, if you put him and Paul Ryan in charge, you are putting the Tea Party in charge of the entire government. And all of them are hell-bent on taking us back to a time when people were begging in the streets. A time when folks didn’t have the health care they needed. They are hell-bent on getting us back into protracted wars in a strange part of the world.

Look. I’m not going to BS you. If you give me another four years, there are some tough choices that have to be made, both here at home and across the sea. We do have to cut spending even more than I have already. We do have to address the long-term entitlement problems. And we do have to consider seriously whether we want to start a war with Iran, should the sanctions in place fail to convince them to stop advancing toward a nuclear weapon. These are hard things. They will require us to make some hard choices.

But I trust you know me. You know how I have conducted myself these past four years. You know how sober-minded I am and how I don’t do things rashly or act without good reason. I don’t have to play Macho Man on the world stage in order to look out for American interests. I don’t have to send young men and women to die to prove how strong our resolve is.

And you have seen the extremism on the other side. You have seen Governor Romney, a man who made his fortune in what a member of his own party called “vulture capitalism,” embrace the most extreme elements of his party and the most extreme policies imaginable. You’ve seen that. 

It comes down to this: Who do you trust to do the right thing as America moves forward?

31 Comments

  1. Sharon Burkhalter

     /  October 15, 2012

    I’ve not heard a more compelling argument from anyone! You are inspiring. Thank you

    Like

    • I appreciate that, Sharon. I just wish Obama, as well as he performed the other night, had made some additional points about Romney’s embrace of extremism through Ryan and his pandering to zealots who were once on the fringes but now enjoy front-row seats in the GOP.

      Like

  2. middlechildwoman

     /  October 15, 2012

    I think you should be President Obama’s speechwriter. Fabulous blog. I, too, am feeling quite anxious and am fed up with the multitude of conservative, extreme sheep.

    Like

  3. At least now I know that someone besides me watches Rachel Maddow. The two of you should join forces and become speech writers.

    Like

    • Dawn,

      Around here she is known as St. Rachel, such is her awesomeness, niceness, and utter holiness! Unfortunately, there are only about a million of us each night tuning in to watch her amazing information-filled show, but millions more are exposed to her through blogs and such. Believe me, right-wingers fear her. That’s why very few of them will go on her show, especially after what happened to that right-wing extremist Rand Paul in 2010. He almost self-destructed when he appeared with her (the clash was over the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as I recall) but managed to pull out a win in Kentucky anyway. He will never face her again, and a lot of his colleagues learned a lesson from that episode, too.

      By the way, thanks for the nice comparison.

      Duane

      Like

  4. Duane, you are a beacon of sanity and progressive logic. I fear you are tragically underutilized in the march toward the success of the American “Experiment”.

    Like

    • Thanks. It took a while to get where I am, in terms of politics, but I think the experience of having been on the other side has helped both my “sanity” and my “logic.”

      And by the way, the tragedy in underutilization is that almost all progressives-liberals are underutilized, in terms of having their voices heard on a par with the reactionaries among us. That’s because there just aren’t enough rich folks on our side who can afford to keep up with those right-wingers, like the Kochs and the Adelsons, for instance, who are wiling to spend lots of money to promote their own interests. Since we are promoting the interests of folks who don’t have a lot of money, naturally liberals are at a disadvantage, especially since the Supreme Court has okayed the selling of our democracy.

      And the American Experiment will only work in the end if in the end moneyed-interests are controlled by the people and not the other way around.

      Thanks again,
      Duane

      Like

  5. Duane,

    Let me add my kudos to those above. Excellent work. Obama’s campaign should adopt your speech forthwith. The only thing I would add, a supplement if you will, is a list of Conservative myths to be debunked since they will probably be perpetuated if Romney/Ryan are elected. The following is not intended to be an exhaustive list. But it might be a good start.

    1. Lowering taxes DOES NOT create jobs!

    2. Austerity HAS NEVER saved a depression or a recession!

    3. Cutting defense spending DOES NOT REDUCE our national security!

    4. Cooperation and Compromise ARE NOT impediments to democracy!

    5. Signing a pledge to not raise taxes (or get rid of tax deductions) IS NOT patriotic!

    6. President Obama WAS NOT born in Kenya, IS NOT a Muslim OR a Socialist and WILL NOT send out the national guard to take away your guns!

    7. The poor and those dependent on welfare DID NOT cause the Great Recession or the increases in the federal debt!

    8. The Americans who DO NOT want to start a business or fight their way up the corporate ladder ARE NOT irresponsible, or lazy, or a drain on society!

    9. The vast majority of Americans who do not pay income taxes ARE NOT irresponsible, or lazy, or a drain on society!

    10. A rising tide DOES NOT LIFT ALL boats, just the boats that are already afloat; NOT the boats that are still tied to the dock!

    11. The United States IS NOT, I repeat, NOT a Christian nation – Creationism IS NOT scientifically valid, women ARE NOT subordinate to men, and homosexuality IS NOT a choice that can be fixed by prayer!

    12. Cutting “entitlement” programs where the beneficiaries have paid taxes in good faith for certain benefits (Social Security and Medicare) is not only a BREACH OF TRUST with the American people, it is flat out IMMORAL!

    For an extensive comparison between Conservative and Liberal see http://www.conservativemyths.com/compare.html

    Herb

    Like

  6. Sedate Me

     /  October 15, 2012

    Especially after Biden’s performance against Ryan, running against a Republican Congress makes more sense than ever. Romney has spun himself around so much, it’s clear to most he’s a weather-vane. So attack Romney via Ryan. He’s is an established “congressional leader” with an attack-able record earned as a member of an unpopular party in a hated institution.

    It may have the added bonus of shoring up the Democratic numbers in Congress. Even though Republicans use Obama to attack sitting Congressional Democrats, he’s still more popular than they are. If he fights back against Congress, it both makes him look better and,by proxy, those other Democrats. If it wins 3 seats, it’ll be worth it.

    The ultimate answer for Obama is simple. Come out swinging. If he did that in the 1st debate, this election would have been all over by now.

    Like

    • I agree if Obama had been more aggressive the first time we would not be talking about Romney except to evaluate his political carcass. Obama did come out swinging, and given the dynamics of the event, I believe he got in as many blows as he could, although I do wish he would have tied Romney to the known extremists in his party more than he did. But in his defense, how do you debate a man so willing to lie with abandon? You can’t spend your whole time saying, “That’s not true, Governor.” You have to also tell folks what you believe.

      All in all, the President helped himself much, and he helped those of us on his side even more, I think. The question is whether this latest debate or the debate to come can undo the damage of that horrible performance the first time.

      Duane

      Like

  7. writer89

     /  October 15, 2012

    Good job, I agree. I’ll just add one more comment to those above: The common wisdom is that the President is afraid he’ll alienate people if he comes off as an “angry Black man.” Nothing could be further from the truth. There are people who will vote for a candidate who comes across as tough even if they don’t agree with him! As for his race, only the deep South cares about that, and they’re never going to vote Democrat, anyway. There is nobody out there thinking, “Well, I’ll vote for the Negro as long as he doesn’t say anything to scare me.” But there are a lot of people thinking, “I might vote third party, because Obama’s not tough enough to stand up to those Republican pricks!”

    Like

    • King Beauregard

       /  October 15, 2012

      I have to disagree: there are a LOT of people way up here in Ohio — here in Kucinich territory, even — who won’t like Obama if he gets too uppity. Oh, they’re not racist (just ask them) but they certainly seem inclined to expect the worst in blacks and look for it. The sort of folks who think it’s understandable that, if there’s an unknown black kid in your neighborhood, you’d watch him like a hawk because you don’t know what he’s up to.

      I think it’s fair to say that Obama’s been dealing with black double standards all his life and knows the game better than you or I. He probably knows what tone to take. Now if only he can keep his eyes open this debate, and the moderator actually does her job, Obama will do just fine.

      Like

      • writer89

         /  October 15, 2012

        I respect your opinion, but I don’t think those people are going to vote for him in the first place, if they ever did. How can you be more uppity than being the President? (But Ohio is the North, and don’t forget what Dick Gregory said: “Down South they don’t care how close I am as long as I don’t get too big, and up North they don’t care how big I am as long as I don’t get too close.” ) I believe it is MUCH more important for him to hold onto the liberal/left base, which I have watched wobble and waver over the past couple of years, to the point where many of them believe he is just as conservative as Bush! They are not going to vote for Romney; they are going to stay home, or vote Green. He needs to win them back if he wants to have a chance, and the only way to do that is to destroy Romney by taking off the gloves and nailing him to his right-wing base. He needs to get in touch with his inner Samuel L. Jackson!

        Like

        • King Beauregard

           /  October 15, 2012

          Obama’s “Progressive” base are not his base. They are, by definition, the leftmost trailing part of the American political spectrum, and very importantly, they don’t vote in numbers. Yeah, you risk inspiring dullards to vote for Jill Stein or to not vote at all, but they really are in the territory of diminishing returns anyway.

          All these statements are subjective as they are opinions, of course. But they are opinions I have developed from trying to talk to people who want, more than anything, to hate the Democrat because he doesn’t own a magic wand that can fix everything.

          I haven’t spent enough time bitching about Lt. Dan Choi lately, so I’m going to go there, because he’s sort of illustrative. As you may recall, he is a gay man who bravely came out of the closet to challenge DADT; he also supported Obama in 2008 and was very public about it. Then, when Obama hadn’t magically fixed everything by mid 2010, Lt. Choi publicly dropped his support for Obama, and in his small way did what he could to inspire “Progressives” to stay home in November 2010. Well, Obama did finally get DADT repealed, despite Dan Choi’s best efforts to install a Congress pathologically opposed to any of the reforms he might have wanted to see … but it didn’t happen fast enough to satisfy Dan Choi.

          There is no pleasing some idiots, and there’s no point in even trying.

          Like

  8. Treeske

     /  October 15, 2012

    Kudos to all of above!

    Like

    • writer89

       /  October 15, 2012

      Looks like we disagree about the meaning of the words “progressive” or “liberal.” Polls consistently indicate that the American people are far more liberal on specific issues than the Republican Party. The Democratic Party base is most assuredly liberal when compared to the Republican base, and they (particularly people under 30) are the ones who gave Obama his margin of victory in 2008. Not an opinion, a fact. It’s also a fact that many of these same people are, like Choi, disenchanted not only by a lack of action on some issues, but more importantly, by a toned-down rhetoric. Obama will need to act more like a progressive in his second term, of course, but in the weeks before the election, he will also have to talk more like one, and if that means pissing off a bunch of people who weren’t going to vote for him anyway because they are racists or “pro-choice” or low-information libertarians, so be it. I argue with people every day who voted for him in 2008 but think they were lied to. Bringing them back on board should be the Democrats’ #1 priority in the next few weeks — not trying to “yassuh, boss” the Reagan Republicans in Ohio. In fact, as a Michigander, I think Ohioans are much like we are: We like people who don’t back down on their beliefs, whatever they are. I think the liberal idiots will be a lot easier to please than the conservative idiots!

      Like

      • King Beauregard

         /  October 16, 2012

        Well you got me: I completely said that Obama should say “yassuh, boss” to court Republicans and others who weren’t going to vote for him anyway. If you really want to play Strawman vs. Strawman, I can go there.

        How about more like this: there are racial double-standards in this country that even Democrats can fall prey to — less commonly in the young, and more commonly in the old — and Obama stands a chance of turning off a segment of his voter base if he isn’t mindful of those double standards. Ever heard of Sarah Silverman and The Great Schlep?

        There are plenty of liberals who can be reminded of the stark and glaringly obvious differences between Obama and Romney; Obama himself will probably do so in the coming debate. And there are some who never learned that progress takes time. But far-left liberal idiots will remain perpetually angry that Obama couldn’t give them single payer, and they’ll fume that Obama is no FDR because he saved the banks rather than whatever it is FDR did. Those are people looking for any excuse at all not to vote for Obama, and after four years in office, Obama’s got a better chance with mildly racist folks who can be persuaded he’s “one of the good ones” and perhaps even “a credit to his race”.

        Like

  9. Outstanding discussion by all – kudos, troops! Duane, this is one of your best posts ever, IMHO.

    Obama would do well to adopt Duane’s speech, as supplemented by Herb, although I do agree with King Beauregard that any kind of anger on the President’s part would backfire. I feel it in my gut. We are only a couple of generations separated from America the Segregated.

    Like

    • King Beauregard

       /  October 16, 2012

      Anger isn’t necessary anyway: direct and firm will get the job done.

      Like

      • I agree that anger is not required. But keep in mind that even directness and firmness on the part of a black person will be interpreted as “uppity” by the inhabitants of America the Segregated. A lack of firmness will be interpreted as surrender by the rest of us. He has to choose. But whatever he did last time was clearly not firm enough, not direct enough, and not enough to put Romney “in his place” — which is not the White House!

        Like

  10. As a “far-left liberal idiot” myself, though one who is a realist when it comes to politics, I can only say that in the long run, the President will be better off appealing to those who actually want what’s best for the country and ignoring people who think in terms of African-Americans being “one of the good ones” or “a credit to his race.” I’m sorry if you think I created a straw man, but the fact is that the assumption behind those statements — that a particular race is intrinsically inferior, but some of them can rise above it (especially if they are half white) — is the basis of all racism. It’s 2012, and the two sides in the racial debate no longer consist of slaveholders who think all Africans are animals and Northern preachers who believe some of them can actually be trained to act and think like white people. We’ve moved beyond that, though not as far as post-racialism.

    FDR did save the banks from themselves, with the FDIC, among other things. He wasn’t nearly the flaming liberal that people think. (Heard of the Roosevelt Recession?) Most of his reputation, like Obama’s, was created by Republicans who opposed all social programs then just as they do now.

    I’m not sure what you mean by your reference to The Great Schlep. I know what that was, but I was under the impression that it was a nice piece of comedy, and if it turned off anybody, it was the people who are also turned off by “Yiddish Curses for Republican Jews.” Fuhgit ’em.

    Like

    • King Beauregard

       /  October 16, 2012

      The Great Schlep was a campaign Sarah Silverman started four years ago when she noticed that her grandmother, and a lot of other life-long Democrats in Boca Raton, didn’t want to vote for Obama, very likely because of the color of his skin. So the Great Schlep was a deal where the grandkids promise to travel all the way to Florida and visit, if their grandparents agree to vote for Obama. I’m pretty sure it was emotional blackmail for comic effect to illustrate a point — Jonathan Swift really didn’t think Irish babies were particularly nutritious either — but yeah, there are life-long Democrat racists. Just visit West Virginny some time.

      It may be that Obama will be served in the long run by doing everything the far left tells him to, but first he’s got to solve the short term problem of getting re-elected, and the far left is absolute ass when it comes to getting people elected. Russ Feingold was a fine progressive Senator, but he was so adamant about not taking corporate donations that he got utterly creamed the other year; apparently the fervent support of the far left doesn’t amount to much in terms of actual countable votes. These days Russ does odd jobs in my neighborhood; sometimes I let him drink from my garden hose, and talking to him, he has the most fascinating insights about how to improve our government. Then I let him get back to work because Mrs. Krenzler’s gutters won’t unclog themselves.

      Like

      • Funny stuff! But elderly Jews are in a whole different category from Ohio Reagan Democrats. They come from a progressive culture (whereas the Ohio folks you’re talking about are mostly the spawn of southern immigrants) and are more easily convinced of what’s right. I know some of them. As for Feingold, he got caught in the same 2010 off-year elections Battle of the Bulge as everyone else, and at the moment he’s doing a great job running Progressives United and helping to raise money to elect Democrats. He’s not drinking from your garden hose. Obama and the Democrats have taken plenty of money from banks, corporations and wealthy Democrats. It wasn’t the money that beat us in 2010, and it won’t be in 2012. It was a lack of enthusiasm on the part of the Dem. base — something that won’t happen if the President grows a pair and puts Romney on the canvas a few times in the next two debates. Nobody who was ever inclined to vote for Obama is going to find that scary. Anybody who does was always going to go in and “pull the lever” (there’s a quaint, old-fashioned term) for the white guy. Obama won’t gain a thing by trying to appeal to jerks.

        C’mon, I can keep this up until Nov. 6!😉

        Like

        • King Beauregard

           /  October 16, 2012

          I’m glad Feingold has learned his lesson. It wasn’t that long ago he was penning opinion pieces about how Obama should show what a man of principle he is and refuse to accept corporate donations.

          What did Feingold do to make his people unenthusiastic in 2010? There’s holding Obama accountable and then there’s making him the scapegoat for everything that goes wrong everywhere. The way I see it, voting is one of the very few obligations our society demands of its citizens, and if you fancy yourself the vanguard of a more reasonable, sane society, the very least you can do is roll out of bed and vote once or twice a year. That’s EVERY election, not just the ones ObamaGirl takes an active interest in. If you can’t do that very simple thing, perhaps you should move to a country that doesn’t require even that much of you. Heck, the Republicans are working on alleviating you of the burden of voting anyway, so just sit it out and maybe the problem will go away.

          I could keep arguing till Nov. 6 of NEXT year, but in the interests of decorum, I’m trying to wind it down. Besides, I need to figure out where Feingold ran off to; I promised him some pizza if he does a good job raking leaves.

          Like

        • Brad Lang and King Beau

          I really enjoyed your exchanges. Thanks for taking the time to respond to each other with wit and informed opinions.

          I just want to chime in and say that my experience here in Southwest Missouri is that, yes, there are Democrats who don’t like black folks, especially black folks brazen enough to think they should be president. I ran into a few of those racist Democrats when I was campaigning for Obama in 2008. In fact, an AFL-CIO guy came in once and suggested that when we deal with such folks–there are some in the labor movement, for God’s sake–that we should point out that Obama is only “half-black.” Make an appeal on the basis of his “white side,” we were essentially told. I kid you not.

          Such are the realities, as Jim above pointed out, in a country with a legacy such as ours. And I am not sure where the line between Obama’s confidence and his uppityness is for Democrats who don’t like black people, as I can’t pretend to get inside their heads. I definitely agree with King Beau when he says that Obama “probably knows what tone to take,” better than we do. But I can’t help thinking, as I have watched him throughout 2007 and 2008 and since he’s been in office, that those around him have worried a little too much about his appearing to be an “angry black man.” I’m guessing that the advice given to appear “presidential” during that first debate was partly rooted in the fear that going after Romney would make Obama appear to be too aggressive. I hope that’s not the case because it came off like the white boss man giving his Negro inferior a tongue-lashing, which is much worse, if one is worried about perceptions.

          As for how dumb committed liberals can be, one only has to go to some liberal sites and snoop around, particularly during non-election years. It’s almost as if nothing has been accomplished, such is the outrage over not getting everything done. And the lack of enthusiasm engendered by such unrealistic criticisms cannot be ignored. If this election is close in a couple of crucial swing states, a few disgruntled liberals can make a difference. Liberals have a problem by virtue of the fact they are liberals: they don’t know how to be conservative enough to play a long game. That is what has them so willing to turn the guns on their own guy. Hell, Cornel West once called Obama, “A black mascot of Wall Street oligarchs and a black puppet of corporate plutocrats.” Give me a goddamn break.

          Some of the things they want to see done could only get done when Obama isn’t fighting for another term. Liberals tend to ignore that political reality, just as they tend to ignore the reality of a Congress effectively controlled by uncompromising bastards in the Tea Party, many of those bastards winning seats because of public reaction to a very mildly progressive universal health insurance coverage law.

          I will say this about the labor movement, the backbone of the Democratic Party’s election ground game. We have a lot of reasons to be disappointed with the President. A lot. But the maturity of the movement, which it didn’t always have, has led it to surmise that as disinterested at times as Mr. Obama has been in our plight, that disinterest is not as damaging as an active effort to destroy us. And that is the bottom line for this stuff.

          As I said, we liberals need to play a long-term, conservative, game. We have a lot to conserve and a lot to do, but it all can’t be done today or tomorrow. Not in this messed up system.

          Duane

          Like

          • writer89

             /  October 18, 2012

            Thanks for taking the time to respond at length to the discussion. I won’t add much, except to say that in my long experience on the left (since 1965), I will tell you that there are two types of liberals — those who, like their right-wing brethren, are incapable of compromise and insist on political correctness in all things, and those who, like myself, understand that there will be no liberal paradise, only a constant struggle in the direction of equality and away from concentration of power in the hands of a few. The latter group is much larger than the former, trust me, and we’ll support the President because we understand that he’s a means to an end. The former group may never come around, but all we can do is try. I think they are more likely to vote for Obama than anybody who has to be convinced that he’s okay because he’s “half white.” With friends like those…

            Like

  11. The points made in this discussion tread reminds me of a quote from Howard Zinn: “If the gods had intended for people to vote, they would have given us candidates.”

    Like

  1. 12 Conservative Myths Everyone Should Know « The Erstwhile Conservative: A Blog of Repentance
%d bloggers like this: