If you vote Democrat this fall you are voting for Obama

Republicans have long been unhappy with President Obama, but now even Democrats are so ashamed of him they won’t even admit they supported him. The latest features the Democratic candidate for Senate in Kentucky refusing to admit she even voted for the man.

I used to say that Obama was a man who played a president on TV. He hardly even bothers to do that anymore. Although he is so unpopular with voters that Democratic candidates treat him like toxic waste with general audiences, Obama remains a rock star among his dwindling, but still enthusiastic if benighted, fans who are willing & able to shovel money in his direction. So our president spends most of his time at fund-raisers talking to the fanatics who still love him. I suppose Obama figures the country has no problems big enough to require his persistent attention.

Democrats are hoping their big bucks will buy the election for them and Obama is still gold with the fat-cat liberals. But it is shameful for our president to spend most of his time in campaign mode nearly two years after his last election.

President Obama made a serious gaffe when he told the truth. Obama said, "Make No Mistake, My Policies Are On The Ballot This Fall"

So if you like what Obama has done to the country, vote Democratic. If you want change, vote Republican.

Posted by Christine & John at October 10, 2014 7:19 PM
Comment #384189

What change do McConnell and his fellow Republicans have in mind? Can you name something positive? Something that does not involve repeal, cutting, barring, banning, doing away with, confronting, bombing, or building a higher fence?

Posted by: phx8 at October 11, 2014 12:07 AM
Comment #384193

Nothing much can be done while Obama is still in the WH. He does not know how to work well with others. The plus side of a Republican Senate would be that Obama would not be able to go nuts in the last two years and push through silly things that would need be changed later. They could also limit unwise picks for courts and appointments.

Another good point would be to clarify. Maybe Republicans would come off looking bad, but Harry Reid could no longer bottle up bills.

Posted by: C&J at October 11, 2014 11:01 AM
Comment #384195

What exactly am I voting FOR when I vote Republican, and don’t give me this philosophical BS, what are those policies?

I’ll tell you what they are:

1) Fiscal policies based on a proposed effect twice tested for, but never confirmed or observed objectively. Observed, though, quite consistently to create budget shortfalls and deficits.

2) Military policies that are genuinely adventurous, whose consequences are blamed on succeeding Democratic Administrations that have to clean up the mess. I’m looking at you, Iraq war.

3) Financial policies that insist that financial elitism creates growth in the lower socioeconomic brackets despite thirty years of contrary evidence.

4) Regulatory policy that propose, naively enough, that bad behavior doesn’t make money and isn’t therefore sustained.

5) Privatization, which often results in corrupting relationships and greater inefficiencies.

6) a complete inability to take objective independent scientific inquiry at face value, or to take corporate positions and talking points at anything less than face value.

7) The foolhardy attempt to roll back the cultural clock to a whiter, more male dominated, more Christian society, one which has only succeeded in alienating one generation after another after they’ve observed the obnoxious behavior of the politicized religious figures.

So on, and so forth.

It seems to me that you scream what you’re against, and whisper what you are for. Your people engage in red scares and blackmail people over their jobs in order to stymie labor, environmental, and safety regulations in the workplace. You allow vastly inefficient energy systems to persist, with no plans as to how to avoid the next big energy crunch (not unlike the last few times)

I have really had enough of the negativism of the right. I can’t go a day without hearing about one more psychotic statement by a leader of your movement about Democrats and their intentions. I keep on hearing what you guys say we want, and I keep on wondering what planet you’re from if you think we believe these things, or who you have us confused with.

We led on hope and change. Republicans have only stagnation and despair, fear and loathing to sell. Sooner or later, they’ll return to us, and you know why? Because at some point, you will ignore or rationalize away another problem while people watch in horror. That’s what people saw with Iraq. That’s what people saw in the 2008 financial crisis. That’s what they’ve seen again and again in the debt ceiling and government shutdown debates.

Republicans have an allergy these days to responsibility, to real world policymaking, as opposed to blowing their hot air out. They’ve forgotten that with a nation that doesn’t all belong to them, and a world that doesn’t always match what they think the world is like, that things will always get complicated, go against plan.

Your problem is, you’d rather let things go terribly wrong than let your partisan principles get compromised. That will doom whatever you do, because the events of the real world have a pungency and intensity that overwhelms all our neat little thoughts. We either adapt to survive, or we watch the world tumble out of control.

I’m sick of being manacled to your party. I’m sick of this country having to deal with so many crises and problems with this adolescent, obnoxious, immature political culture hamstringing us every step of the way. Republicans may accuse us of being the subversives, but the people doing the greatest damage to our institutions, the greatest damage to Americas primacy and stability, are the very people pointing the fingers at everybody else: The GOP. They’re the people the world looks at when they wonder whether our nation’s gone nuts.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 11, 2014 4:45 PM
Comment #384196

You know, I’ve seen Obama sign one bill after another that was less than ideal. Those bills, since the GOP has taken over, have often had to have Democratic votes added to put them over the top, sometimes even the majority of votes. Know why? Because you have these Republicans, about 80 or so who will never vote for any compromise whatsoever. Without them, Republicans can’t pass anything by themselves in the House.

You can complain about Obama not having people skills, but we have seen him repeatedly working with people, even agreeing to compromises that probably cost him a lot of support with people who wanted more hope and change out of his policies, so to speak.

The truth is, Republicans have been trying to defend and intensify the Bush status quo, despite a terrible, discrediting failure on almost all fronts. Why? Because you folks committed yourselves, then doubled down on your bad policies. The only change we will get out your people is things getting worse, because not only is the GOP incompetent these days, but it has absolutely sealed itself off from acknowledging the fact, no matter how bad things get. Their solutions to making mistakes is simply to define things away Orwell-style. You’ve replaced hope and change with despair and stagnation.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 11, 2014 4:54 PM
Comment #384197

It’s strange how Democratics will criticize…

Because you have these Republicans, about 80 or so who will never vote for any compromise whatsoever.

…the 80 who were elected to protect our current form of government, then criticize and blame the those Republicans who are on the Democratic’s side (RINOs), for not giving the Democratics what they want.

Democratics like to group people. Here they group the conservative Republicans with the RINOs and blame the entire party, when in fact, The Democratics and the RINOs have grouped themselves together to combat the 80 who are standing firm for the U.S. Constitution.

The fact that the Democratics and RINOs are on the wrong side is clearly exemplified by how these 80, as quantified earlier, have stymied the rest of the 535! When you include the bills held up in the senate for political reasons, it gives us the Do-nuthin’ congress we have today.

I’d rather they do nothing. Hurrah for the 80!

Posted by: Weary Willie at October 11, 2014 5:43 PM
Comment #384199

By the way, if anyone cares, here is what the KY candidate actually said:

“Editorial Board: Did you vote for President Obama 2008 20012?
Alison Lundergan Grime (D-KY): You know, this election isn’t about the President. It’s about making sure we put Kentuckians back to work.

Editorial Board: Could you answer it?

Alison Lundergan Grime (D-KY): I was actually an 08 delegate for Hilary Clinton. And I think that Kentuckians know I am a Clinton Democrat through and through. I respect the sanctity of the ballot box and I know the members of this editorial board do as well.”

Notice she did not say she voted for Obama OR Clinton. She did not reveal how she voted, but made it abundantly clear; she is, after all, the Democratic candidate for a Senate seat. The Editorial Board wanted to generate a sound bite for her opponent. She declined.

Posted by: phx8 at October 11, 2014 5:56 PM
Comment #384202

Weary Willie-
You don’t understand majorities or how they work, if that’s your read on things. It’s self-serving really, more of a scapegoating than an actual achievement of any defense, even if we do buy into your BS, which we don’t.

See, if you have something like, say, the tax cuts renewal, and your people, hell, most Republicans won’t vote for it, then that means that whatever does pass the House ends up likely being watered down so Democrats will vote for it. The real bill, the one that actually passes, the actual LAW ends up LESS like what you would prefer.

This is the idiocy of the whole approach.

By doing what they’re doing, they’ve allowed Obama to sweep in, with the necessity of passing things before disastrous events occur putting your fellow Republican’s backs against the wall, and offer those Republican a way out, one that naturally requires a number of Democrats to agree to the bill. That means, though, that they have more control over the end product.

Because you insist that nothing less than your perfect idea will get your votes, because you effectively render your majority inoperative to do this, you’ve cancelled out much of your influence over final policy. This, actually, hews rather closely to the design as the Framers originally saw it. Two factions unite to do something that’s in their common interest.

You can fantasize about getting the rest of the Republicans to go screaming off the cliff with you, and maybe you’ll manage it at some point. Thing is, though, those people you’re calling RINOs have been around long enough to have gone through at least two episodes where the GOP’s ideological overreach cost them dearly.

So, they’re willing to work out deals with the Democrats where Democrats get more of what they want, and Republicans get less of what they don’t want. A majority finds its way into existence, and unfortunately for you, it’s not one that includes you.

That should tell you something, if you weren’t so arrogant about it. That should tell you that your insistence on that hardline could very well be forcing part of the GOP towards being more moderate. Or that if necessity pushes things hard enough, folks will fear the consequences of doing nothing more than they fear you.

As for the rest? Well, Willie, I hate to break this to you, but the “political reasons” that the Democrats are holding up all those bills you want passed? Same “political reasons” you have. Has it ever occurred to you that Democratic Senators would not benefit too much from having your ultra-hard right legislation on their record? Do you think that The GOP is the only party whose members want more party discipline from their leaders? That’s the insanity of your approach, really: you argue, in essence, for the Democrats to treat voters in a way you would argue against for your side.

Maybe you should consider that there are good reasons not to expect certain things to pass, and that those reasons aren’t changing anytime soon. If that bothers you, well, hey, your fault for getting your heart set on stuff self-respecting liberals and Democrats could not support.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 11, 2014 7:27 PM
Comment #384203


I am for a free market as much as possible free from crony capitalism.

I am for a strong and consequent national defense that recognizes both our strengths and limitations.

I am for a prudent government that does well what governments should do but leaves to the people themselves most of the rest.

I am for a government that trusts people to be adult and does not overly protect them.

Republicans do not give me all I want. Democrats give me even less.

I have been thinking about what I don’t like about liberals, since I share most of “their” goals.

There are two big things that annoy me about liberals. First is their emphasis on victims. The second is their desire to make things fair and perfect AND their belief that is possible.

Re “You can complain about Obama not having people skills, but we have seen him repeatedly working with people, even agreeing to compromises that probably cost him a lot of support with people who wanted more hope and change out of his policies, so to speak.”

Even fellow Democrats are annoyed at Obama.


I watch her give the interview. It was very uncomfortable for her. She could have - should have - just answered in the affirmative.

Posted by: C&J at October 11, 2014 9:32 PM
Comment #384223

Oh, I know crony capitalism. Remember K-Street? Remember having to sue to get the names of the people who helped the Bush Administration shape it’s energy policy (a lawsuit ultimately made moot when the list leaked to the press?)

You say these things, but the rhetoric is designed to allow you to pretend that the Bush Administration was the better, less corrupt one. But you know what they did with Solyndra? The Uber-example? They let it drop, even though their executives came and said, “Please, bail us out!”

You guys play word games. You say Obama is less dependable of a job creator when in fact he has more months now with over 100,000, or even 200,000 than Bush will ever have, months of consistent growth, rather than the unstable herky-jerky movement. He’s fairly close to having more months of positive growth, period, and has few negative months.

The fiscal situation has gotten better under him. I know you can only see the budget deficit that first year, and you ignore how that budgeting reflects the previous year’s economic crisis, and the extreme spending and tax cuts that preceded it.

You talk about his military failures. Really. Because I remember that your responses go along the lines of doing things like Praising Putin for putting our President in his place, rather than helping approve the military strike. Oh, and yes, your President negotiated that withdrawal, a thing you likely said when Obama made that withdrawal a few years back, or likely forgot. I don’t remember which, your people tend to go back and forth depending on what you oppose that day.

As for emphasis on victims? I could not imagine that somebody would portray an oil company with a raging blowout polluting the Gulf of Mexico as a victim, but somehow, your people managed. I cannot imagine seeing Wall Street as the victims after what they did, but somehow, your narrative does just that, saying they were forced to write bad loans, instead of eagerly creating a mill of derivatives so they could write them til the cows came home without suffering the consequences. The famous Santelli rant takes place in front of markets bailed out by the taxpayer, but does it decry these markets getting bailed out, or does it decry people, ordinary people, getting help on their mortgages?

Yeah, that. That’s what strikes me, really. When somebody’s trying to impose their religious sentiments about Birth Control on their consenting adult employees, who aren’t staff in a church or something, but merely a church-owned, or even a business owned by a religious person, who do you portray as the victim? Not the person deprived of their choice over their own body, their own personal healthcare, but the organization with power.

Yeah, I’ve looked as your people in the Supreme court have naively made it easier for big money donors to overwhelm everybody else’s message with their own, to take what are supposed to be non-partisan non-profits, and twist them into political organizations. I know Darrell Issa had you guys thinking Conservatives were the main victims of those audits the IRS did a while back, but you know, many of those organizations deserved to have their non-profit status scrutinized, because they’re not really supposed to be doing what they were doing. The only problem was that rather than do a generalized or random selection of non-profits and start getting tough on this, they tried keywords on it.

Go through your rhetoric. It’s always the people with power that are the victims. That is, unless you’re talking your people when they don’t get what they want in Congress. When Harry Reid doesn’t rubberstamp all the things your people in the House pass, trying to impress Tea Party voters unclear on the concept of Congress as a deliberative, compromise-centered body. How many votes have my people had to step in and fill in for, where your people have been too good to even vote for the most lopsided of compromises? Hell, even on the 2011 debt ceiling deal, we had to fill in to create your majority, because those 80 votes you had from the Tea Party weren’t going to come for ANYTHING short of everything those people wanted.

Here’s the thing: I’ve lived much of my life at the lower end of the middle class. I’ve dealt firsthand with many of the issues, like mortgage company chicanery and lack of healthcare, that you might have only dealt with abstractly in recent times. You guys think in terms of this Randian tough love, this force people to make better judgments, but you don’t realize that in many cases, your resources constrain the quality of the choices you can make, and often force short-term oriented thinking. As in, how do I eat, pay my bills this day, this month. The more people are forced to do this, the more sensitive the system as a whole is to shocks.

This isn’t about making things perfect, but making things better, more robust overall. The system we’ve created is too easy to take down with smaller failures. That’s what happens when you don’t balance the interests of the small guy with the big guy. The big guy can weather any number of storms that will wipe out the small guy, and not because that big guy has greater morality or anything, but simply better luck, and better resources. The market doesn’t account for how good or bad people are. It won’t save the good people and punish the bad people all by itself.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 13, 2014 7:07 AM
Comment #384226

“I’ve dealt firsthand with many of the issues, like mortgage company chicanery..”

Stephen, I’d be interested in what chicanery you enountered, if you are willing to share.

Posted by: Mike in Tampa at October 13, 2014 12:55 PM
Comment #384229

Daugherty wrote; ” I’m sick of this country having to deal with so many crises and problems with this adolescent, obnoxious, immature political culture hamstringing us every step of the way.”

Well I,and millions of other Americans certainly agree with that statement and we will change this come November. The libs are out of ideas, can’t manage a lemonade stand, and have more scandals in the works than could be imagined.

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 13, 2014 7:53 PM
Comment #384231

I know how majorities work, Stephen Daugherty. I also know we have a republic for a government and your majority is an irresponsble group of criminals that have no regard for the constitution. The proof rests with the 80’s ability to get the majority of citizens to take a second look at what your irresponsible majority are doing.

Posted by: Weary Willie at October 13, 2014 9:10 PM
Comment #384234
I am for a free market as much as possible free from crony capitalism.

Yet you supported GWb/Cheney’s no bid contracts for Haliburton to electrocute our soldiers in Iraq.

I am for a strong and consequent national defense that recognizes both our strengths and limitations.

Yes you confuse national defense with protecting corporate interest in the middle east.

I am for a prudent government that does well what governments should do but leaves to the people themselves most of the rest.

Yet you support congress shutting down government unless the president capitulates to anything you ask for.

I am for a government that trusts people to be adult and does not overly protect them.

Corporations on the other hand should be protected at all costs to the people. Tax breaks to send jobs overseas is my favorite “adult” action.

Republicans do not give me all I want. Democrats give me even less.

SO you must want war on credit cards while cutting taxes, stifling debt for the next generation and a smaller poorer middle class footing the tax burden for the wealthy. Income inequality and low taxes for the “job creators”, voter suppression and blaming homosexuals, immigrants and intellectuals for the problems of the country.

Posted by: j2t2 at October 14, 2014 8:09 AM
Comment #384236

I am saddened and disgusted by the tactics of the conservative/republican/teaparty people in this country. They have convinced themselves (with the help of right wing talk radio, Fox news, and right wing bloggers) that if you are a liberal or a progressive or even a Democrat you do not work for a living and accept government assistance. They have heard to many stories about “welfare queens” and “young bucks buying steak with food stamps” to have any rational idea of who they oppose and this has been going on for years. They are convinced to the point that they use any and all rationales to defeat what they see as their greatest nemesis, “poor people wanting free stuff”. This gives them great leeway to lie, distort and use misinformation to win the discussion at any cost. And that is their goal, “To win the discussion at any cost” truth be damned.

Posted by: Speak4all at October 14, 2014 2:38 PM
Comment #384237

The title of this thread is a good example of trying “to win the discussion at any cost”. The author would have you believe that who you vote for is not important and that rather than vote for someone they disagree with they would have you not vote at all instead. This is evidenced by their avid “voter supression” tactics nationwide which are meant to reduce voter access to voting capability. If you vote for someone (no matter who it is) it is a vote for that person only. By saying that a vote for a Democrat is a vote for Obama they are trying to diminish the voting process and their avid hatred of a sitting president is way to apparent.

Posted by: Speak4all at October 14, 2014 3:14 PM
Post a comment