Do you agree with Obama's compromise?

[Alphawolf55]

I know these aren't personally your opinions but I'm going to address them.

1) He could have supported McConnell's proposal from 3 weeks ago that provided for a CLEAN debt ceiling increase (McConnell did offer a clean debt ceiling hike, which is why Ezra Klein, among others, liked it: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezr ... _blog.html) - but Obama didn't want that deal because it would harm him politically by making him raise the debt ceiling 3 times between now and the election. So he avoided a clean debt ceiling hike out of political concerns for his re-election and because he WANTED to link it to cuts..

So wait, one of the perceived bad moves that Obama made was that when he extended the Bush tax cuts he trusted that the Republicans would keep their word about not raising drama on the debt ceiling. So what Obama should have done this time around was agree to a deal that would require him to not only trust them to not raise drama about the debt ceiling in the future, but trust them to not do it during a time where he'll be campaigning and it'll be in the GOP's best interest to raise drama?

(2) He could have threatened to use leverage - like the 14th Amendment option, the coinage option, or other legal maneuvering - even if he didn't intend to use it - as a way of telling the Republicans: I CAN RAISE THE DEBT WITHOUT YOU (see Krugman's column on this today, where he lays out those options).

Legally questionable, could get him impeached if it backfired.

(3) He could have refrained from publicly affirming the GOP's bullshit economic arguments at every corner -- that spending cuts are necessary to help the economy via increased confidence -- in order to strengthen his hand with public opinion while weakening the GOP's - http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/0 ... ver-obama/.

This suggest the GOP care about the public at large think about them. The fact that the far majority what tax hikes on the wealthy but the GOP ignore them suggest they don't.

(4) He could have raised the debt ceiling in the 2009 lame-duck Congress and avoided this whole thing (see Krugman today).

He probably should have done this but that was in the past. I'm not arguing that Obama fucked up majorly in the past, I'm asking what he should have done this summer. While the first one is a possible solution it requires Obama trusting a group of people who have been demonstrated to not be trust worthy.

[Thanas]

I know these aren't personally your opinions but I'm going to address them.

While not addressing the point that the one who wanted the spending cuts was Obama himself.

So wait, one of the perceived bad moves that Obama made was that when he extended the Bush tax cuts he trusted that the Republicans would keep their word about not raising drama on the debt ceiling. So what Obama should have done this time around was agree to a deal that would require him to not only trust them to not raise drama about the debt ceiling in the future, but trust them to not do it during a time where he'll be campaigning and it'll be in the GOP's best interest to raise drama?

When it costs him nothing but drama? Yes. Now he will be getting the drama and the cuts (except if he wanted them all along as well, which seems to be more and more the case).

Legally questionable, could get him impeached if it backfired.

So could deciding he had the power to kill a US citizen without trial.

This suggest the GOP care about the public at large think about them. The fact that the far majority what tax hikes on the wealthy but the GOP ignore them suggest they don't.

And yet, by doing nothing, he lost even public leverage. Instead of fighting tooth and nail, he just bent over...again. And again.

He probably should have done this but that was in the past. I'm not arguing that Obama fucked up majorly in the past, I'm asking what he should have done this summer. While the first one is a possible solution it requires Obama trusting a group of people who have been demonstrated to not be trust worthy.

What is your evidence that Obama did not want these cuts in the first place?

[The Romulan Republic]

What difference has there between Obama and what the GOP wants again? He and his party have caved into almost always to the Republican party for over a decade. As Thanas's picture shows, for all the fear of the GOP/Tea Baggers, the main implementation of their policies and ideals has mainly been Obama. Economically, you could swap Obama for McCain and nothing would be that different. That's how bad things have gotten. When a Democrat president vying for hope and change is reskin of Bush. Sure it if it gets more local, I am sure the Dems are probably better but on an overall national level, they've been spineless even when in a postion of power. I mean please, Obama could have 'R' next to his name and it'd be convincing.

Oh God, I really fucking hate this line.

Its fine to criticize Obama, but when people try to say with a straight face that he's exactly the same as Republicans, they're simply showing their own lack of subtlety and black and white thinking.

You might have had a case ten years ago. Maybe Obama is like a typical Republican back then, on at least some issues. But the GOP has gotten a lot nastier, and a lot crazier. And you're a fool if you ignore it.

[Thanas]

Care to name one area besides gay rights where Obama is really distinguishable in his results from a moderate republican?

[Bluewolf]

I recognize that RR but the fact of the matter is that still, Obama, despite being slightly better than a Republican POTUS at this point, is only just. When your Democratic POTUS is only a sliver away from being a Republican POTUS, something has gone wrong. The Tea party is a nasty element but their longevity and hold is up in the air. They control all of he GOP as yet. However, again, Obama is giving what the GOP and the tea party want. Low taxes, cut backs on "entitlement" programs etc. He is folding to the point that he is appeasing his worst enemies.

[erik_t]

Something that makes me angry about President Obama is the way he negotiates.

---

President Obama seems to open his negotiations with "I'll clean my room and be good all day for half a cookie."

There's an implicit assumption here that the ending point of a negotiation will necessarily fall somewhere around the midpoint between the two opening positions. It's certainly not true in general - if Obama had started with 'I want a 80% marginal tax rate over $1M', this would not change the final compromise vs. starting with 'I want a 40% marginal tax rate over $1M'.

Given the mindless drive of the Teaists, I'm not sure what effect it would have had here. I am entirely comfortable saying I'm not sure there would have been any effect at all.

[The Romulan Republic]

While not addressing the point that the one who wanted the spending cuts was Obama himself.

I'm not denying he wanted spending cuts. Though I doubt they're the same cuts the GOP wanted (take the cuts to defence this compromise is supposed to include). And to be honest, we probably need spending cuts.

Spending cuts without tax hikes is another matter, but unfortunately he wasn't going to get that thanks to the Teabaggers in the House. But I suppose you think he should have just waved his magic wand and made Congress go away?

So could deciding he had the power to kill a US citizen without trial.

Yes, he could commit another illegal abuse of executive power. And that wouldn't be a good thing.

[Alphawolf55]

While not addressing the point that the one who wanted the spending cuts was Obama himself.

They're irrelevant to the conversations and the results. The conversation is about what we got (A deal with almost no cuts in discretionary, absolutely no cuts in Medicare and SS) and how Obama could have reasonably gotten a deal that would be better for progressives.

When it costs him nothing but drama? Yes. Now he will be getting the drama and the cuts (except if he wanted them all along as well, which seems to be more and more the case).

What? The plan would do is say the debt ceiling will be increased in increments. There is nothing to guarantee that the GOP wouldn't try the same shit they did this time around. There's no logic to it, if one of the claimed mistakes of Obama is that he trusted the GOP not to raise drama over the debt limit in the first place.

So could deciding he had the power to kill a US citizen without trial.

Difference is, the GOP for the most part agrees with Obama in his foreign policy pursuits. They don't care if he kills "terrorist", they will care if he raises the debt ceiling claiming the 14th amendment.

And yet, by doing nothing, he lost even public leverage. Instead of fighting tooth and nail, he just bent over...again. And again.

There was no public leverage. You're acting like if the American people showed their disapproval the GOP would change their ways. This is strictly not true.

What is your evidence that Obama did not want these cuts in the first place?

That is not what's being debated here. I'm not arguing one way or another what cuts Obama makes, I'm trying to figure out how people honestly expected Obama and the Democrats to get a better deal for progressives.

Care to name one area besides gay rights where Obama is really distinguishable from a moderate republican like McCain?

2000 McCain or 2008 McCain?

[TheHammer]

Obama made it clear he wanted to see tax revenue increases, but that wasn't going to happen with the Tea Bagger Republicans in the house. Sometimes compromise is a mutually agreed upon disagreeable result. Such is the case when you are facing finanical crisis.

Did you even read that Thanas post?

(1) Three days ago, Democratic Rep. John Conyers, appearing at a meeting of the Out of Poverty caucus, said: "The Republicans -- Speaker Boehner or Majority Leader Cantor -- did not call for Social Security cuts in the budget deal. The President of the United States called for that" (video here, at 1:30);

So yeah, ultra-liberal Obama brought up Social Security cuts. It had some other goodies that you should read. It's like Obama is an (American) conservative or something

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/1 ... 99839.html

http://pleasecutthecrap.typepad.com/mai ... e-.html#tp

When Obama talks about "cuts" to medicare and Social Security, he means to do so through "means-testing" and reform, not by cutting services to the people who need it. Call it a back door tax on the rich if you will... Basically, the rich who don't need medicare and social security don't get access to it, or have to pay more to benefit from it. That makes the program stronger and more sustainable for the people who do still need it. There are also "questionable" applications of medicare money (see the second link about Bachman's "Gay Therapy" treatment getting federal funds).

The alternative of keeping "the status quo" is that the programs go bankrupt. Is that what you would prefer to see?

Saying that this is all the mean old Tea Party's fault is ridiculous. Do you really think that they would have tried this if Obama had actually stood up to the Republicans? As opposed to caving in to the GOP every time? I'd say Obama brought this upon himself but I've decided that if I pretend he's a moderate Republican, everything he does makes a lot more sense!

It's not "All the Tea Party's fault" but a good chunk of it is. Above all, Obama is a pragmatist. He's got to deal with the congress he has, not the congress he would like. Obama quite often stands up to the Republicans, but he still has to work with them. He can't simply tell them to "go fuck themselves" even if he'd really really like to.

don't see Republicans touting this as a victory, which they most certainly would be if they felt as much.

Boehner told his Republican caucus on a Sunday night conference call that the deal isn't done yet. But Boehner said it does not violate GOP principles.

"We got 98 percent of what we wanted," he said adding that the framework cuts more spending than it raises the debt limit. It also caps future spending to limits in the growth of government.

Fox News, of all things!

Of course he's going to polish that turd as much as he can and try to pass it off as a diamond in the rough to his base. What else do you expect him to do? The response of the Tea Partiers should tell you what they really think about the bill. It didn't make anyone "happy", but it was something everyone could live with.

[Uraniun235]

For me not to vote for Obama. Either his Republican opposition would have to be willing to support tax hikes, green investments, dropping military spending and further health care reform (Basically not going to happen) or there would have to be a Progressive Third Party choice that had such a huge chance of winning that there's no way a spoiler effect would happen.

Wow, really? So even if Obama pushed through a privatization of Social Security and launched an invasion of Iran, you'd still vote for him just to avoid the scaaaaary Repubs?

It highly depends on what his opponent is offering. I'm not afraid to vote for a Republican if he's offering the right stuff. But I cant imagine a scenario in modern politics at all where the Republicans are more liberal then the Democrats. Now in the primary if there's some candidate that seriously challenges Obama's as a candidate that's a progressive dream, I'll vote for him. Because that's when you try to throw out center right politicians like Obama in today's political climate, in the primary not in the general election, that's where change happens.

Edit: Answer me this, what will sitting out on the next election and having the current Republicans truly accomplish? Are you hoping that another four year of Republicans in the White House will lead to a more progressive candidate being chosen for the 2016? What are you hoping to accomplish?

To be blunt, I think we're fucked either way, and I just want to be able to say with a clean conscience that when Obama betrayed both his campaign promises (and yes, while people did read too much into his campaign speeches, he has still retreated from what he campaigned on) and his basic duties as a president and as a human being, I refused to support his administration by voting in favor of another four years. If there's an actual Democratic primary challenger to Obama, I'll register Democrat and desperately hope that my piddling Oregonian primary vote somehow counts, but I really severely doubt that will happen. And even if there were a potential primary challenger, like I said, I live in Oregon; by the time we have our primary election, it's all but decided already. (I really hate that shit, too. "nuhhh our state law says we have primaries first" Iowa and New Hampshire should just burn, burn, burn.)

I'll also admit that as an Oregonian, it's much less "dangerous" for me to not vote Democrat than it would be in a more closely contested state. I still think that I would do the same in another state (although I couldn't tell you for certain without actually living in another state), but it's not like I'm going to be the guy that throws the election to whatever nightmare Repub ticket you wake up screaming from each night.

What I find offensive is that it seems like you assume I'm asking what it would take for you to vote Republican. I didn't say that at all. I won't vote Republican either, nor do I intend to not vote. I'm going to vote third-party. As to what I think I can accomplish, the only thing I can hope for is that enough other people vote third-party that it causes the main parties to either address the issues that make the third-party relatively successful, or that the main parties ignore it and the third-party manages to grow in the subsequent election.

But really, the most important thing for me is to refuse to assent to ongoing torture, handjobs for finance, and extended tax cuts for the rich. It's a small, insignificant gesture, as I'm sure Illuminatus Primus would remind us; but it seems like the very least I could do.

Wow, really? So even if Obama pushed through a privatization of Social Security and launched an invasion of Iran, you'd still vote for him just to avoid the scaaaaary Repubs?

You're acting like fear of the Republicans is somehow unwarranted. Anyone with the rudiments of a functioning brain should be able to tell a far Right/Teabagger government would be worse than Obama. Keep in mind that for all the suckiness of this compromise, it doesn't include a balanced budget amendment or simply letting the government default like some in the Tea Party would have liked.

If you don't fear the prospect of a Teabagger President, you're either extremely ignorant of the last few years in American politics, extremely stupid, or both.

In any case, I certainly don't expect Obama will do either of the things you suggest.

No, I'm not saying we have nothing to fear from a Republican administration. What I'm saying is that you are letting the Democrats use that fear to secure your vote no matter what they do. Alphawolf has already admitted that he would remain a steadfast Democratic supporter even if Obama invaded Iran and destroyed Social Security, so what fucking incentive is there at all for the Democrats to do anything beneficial or good for you? All they have to do is be one step short of the Republicans, and you'll still stand by them no matter what. It's like a guy who is so afraid of being single that he stays with his girlfriend, even though she constantly cheats on him and treats him like shit. That's you, that's exactly what you're doing, and you're fucking pathetic for it.

[Stark]

I have to agree with that; I regularly 'waste' my vote by voting for someone who will never win, simply because I consider it my duty as a citizen to vote for the best candidate, and not the best candidate with a chance of winning.

In a country where the population either doesn't vote or automatically votes for 'their team', complaints about political choice and the like really get no sympathy at all from me. The hilarious 'counter' that this is wasting a vote is actually a self-fulfilling prophecy; if you only vote for a limited set of candidates, of COURSE all other votes are 'wasted'! Your own parochialism and factionalism are what create and perpetuate this situation (as much as the stupid arrangement of the American government helps it along).

[Alphawolf55]

To be blunt, I think we're fucked either way, and I just want to be able to say with a clean conscience that when Obama betrayed both his campaign promises (and yes, while people did read too much into his campaign speeches, he has still retreated from what he campaigned on) and his basic duties as a president and as a human being, I refused to support his administration by voting in favor of another four years. If there's an actual Democratic primary challenger to Obama, I'll register Democrat and desperately hope that my piddling Oregonian primary vote somehow counts, but I really severely doubt that will happen. And even if there were a potential primary challenger, like I said, I live in Oregon; by the time we have our primary election, it's all but decided already. (I really hate that shit, too. "nuhhh our state law says we have primaries first" Iowa and New Hampshire should just burn, burn, burn.)

As someone from NH. It should not burn

I'll also admit that as an Oregonian, it's much less "dangerous" for me to not vote Democrat than it would be in a more closely contested state. I still think that I would do the same in another state (although I couldn't tell you for certain without actually living in another state), but it's not like I'm going to be the guy that throws the election to whatever nightmare Repub ticket you wake up screaming from each night.

What I find offensive is that it seems like you assume I'm asking what it would take for you to vote Republican. I didn't say that at all. I won't vote Republican either, nor do I intend to not vote. I'm going to vote third-party. As to what I think I can accomplish, the only thing I can hope for is that enough other people vote third-party that it causes the main parties to either address the issues that make the third-party relatively successful, or that the main parties ignore it and the third-party manages to grow in the subsequent election.

But really, the most important thing for me is to refuse to assent to ongoing torture, handjobs for finance, and extended tax cuts for the rich. It's a small, insignificant gesture, as I'm sure Illuminatus Primus would remind us; but it seems like the very least I could do.

This is all fine and good but to me what seems more realistic is voting in heavily in primaries for highly progressive candidates, vote out Blue Dog democrats who have been in office for 20 years. Due what the Tea Party did to the Republicans but with Progressives.

Wow, really? So even if Obama pushed through a privatization of Social Security and launched an invasion of Iran, you'd still vote for him just to avoid the scaaaaary Repubs?

You're acting like fear of the Republicans is somehow unwarranted. Anyone with the rudiments of a functioning brain should be able to tell a far Right/Teabagger government would be worse than Obama. Keep in mind that for all the suckiness of this compromise, it doesn't include a balanced budget amendment or simply letting the government default like some in the Tea Party would have liked.

If you don't fear the prospect of a Teabagger President, you're either extremely ignorant of the last few years in American politics, extremely stupid, or both.

In any case, I certainly don't expect Obama will do either of the things you suggest.
No, I'm not saying we have nothing to fear from a Republican administration. What I'm saying is that you are letting the Democrats use that fear to secure your vote no matter what they do. Alphawolf has already admitted that he would remain a steadfast Democratic supporter even if Obama invaded Iran and destroyed Social Security, so what fucking incentive is there at all for the Democrats to do anything beneficial or good for you? All they have to do is be one step short of the Republicans, and you'll still stand by them no matter what. It's like a guy who is so afraid of being single that he stays with his girlfriend, even though she constantly cheats on him and treats him like shit. That's you, that's exactly what you're doing, and you're fucking pathetic for it.

Wow way to take what I said completely out of context. I never said I'd support Democrats no matter what. I said, I'd always vote for the lesser of two evils. You're also viewing this entirely in the wrong context. You're viewing the Democrats as one big monolithic organization that all members follow the same party line. Again, what you're saying is only true if people completely ignore primaries and only vote in the general election. But if Progressives actively vote out non-Progressive candidates in the primary, the Democrats will listen. Because the message isn't "We'll vote for you no matter what because you're a democrat" it becomes "Yes, we'll vote for a Democrat almost always but there's no guarantee it's going to be you"

This scenario isn't like a guy whose afraid to leave his girlfriend to be single. It's more akin to a guy saying he hasn't found the right girl yet but he's completely only attracted to women and you being like "Well the real problem is women!, have you tried dating someone who isn't a woman or not dating at all!"

[Simon_Jester]

There's a problem with saying "we'll always vote X because X is better than Y," because yes, you wind up getting taken for granted.

But there's also a problem with saying "if we always vote for X no matter what X does, X has no incentive to listen to us." That's true- but if you vote against X consistently, X may decide to say "screw you, I'll find voters somewhere else," and race away from your position faster.

If all gay people decide to vote against Obama or not vote at all because they're not satisfied with his position on gay rights, it's not really to his advantage to promote gay rights anymore. He'd probably win more votes by abandoning gay rights and appealing to people who, say, like the idea of Medicare, but don't like gay people.

You can lose representation that way- faced with a fractious and difficult to please demographic, it's no wonder if politicians ignore them and look for someone they can satisfy more easily. You're free to criticize the politicians for doing that, but they'll do it anyway.

To force politicians to pay attention to a difficult-to-please demographic, you have to make their success or failure hinge on it. It's a lot easier to do that with primary challenges and mobilization of resources for candidates of your choice than it is to do that by boycotting and voting for third parties.

Care to name one area besides gay rights where Obama is really distinguishable in his results from a moderate republican?

I don't know. Where are we going to find a moderate Republican these days? All the Republicans on offer are either lunatics, or beholden to lunacy.

If we could find a moderate Republican on the national level, I'd be all for comparing him to Obama.

[Stark]

If all gay people decide to vote against Obama or not vote at all because they're not satisfied with his position on gay rights, it's not really to his advantage to promote gay rights anymore.

This is the best logic ever. Are issues (and the population) really held hostage by political parties in the US? What a fucking riot. The population shouldn't demand too much from their elected leaders, or risk being ignored! LAND OF THE FREE

'I don't support my party's stance on xyz, but I vote for them anyway to prevent their stance getting worse'.

[Simon_Jester]

No, that's not the plan. I'm not saying "vote for them anyway," I'm saying "go out of your way to seize control of them and turn them to your own ends."

Worked for the Tea Party.

Just saying "fuck this noise, I'm going to go form my own party that will consist of, at most, 5% of the population" is a stupid thing to do in any political system that doesn't award disproportionate power to political parties with 5% support.

[Jim Raynor]

Someone smack me down if I'm wrong, but it seemed like Obama and the Democrats couldn't win here. The problem was that they wanted to actually solve the problem of the debt ceiling, while the Republicans (specifically the Tea Party) were quite willing to see the country go down the crapper if it meant opposing any tax raises. If the Democrats held firm, the deal would die, the country would default and lose its credit rating, and the economy would plummet. That's the problem when one side isn't reasonable, and plays like it has nothing to lose.

[The Romulan Republic]

That sounds about right. The truth of the matter is that whatever else Obama may have done wrong, in this case I think he really was screwed either way. In his place, I'd probably have made a similar choice.

[Stark]

No, that's not the plan. I'm not saying "vote for them anyway," I'm saying "go out of your way to seize control of them and turn them to your own ends."

Worked for the Tea Party.

Just saying "fuck this noise, I'm going to go form my own party that will consist of, at most, 5% of the population" is a stupid thing to do in any political system that doesn't award disproportionate power to political parties with 5% support.

Well yeah, actually participating in the political process is a set up from just being angry 'your guy' isn't doing what you want.

Jim, do you think the country is in a situation where the Tea Party would honestly have continued to oppose the program if Obama didn't compromise?

[Jim Raynor]

Jim, do you think the country is in a situation where the Tea Party would honestly have continued to oppose the program if Obama didn't compromise?

When quite a few of their Congressmen went on air saying that they would? When people on the streets protested against raising the debt ceiling? I don't even know anymore. I wouldn't put it past them at this point. Republicans can be shamelessly hypocrital. Even if they caused a default, by 2012 they'd be using that default as their main argument against Obama. Just like how everyone supported the bail outs in 2008, but now the narrative has changed to Obama the commie trying to spend this country into oblivion.

[Gigaliel]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/1 ... 99839.html

http://pleasecutthecrap.typepad.com/mai ... e-.html#tp

When Obama talks about "cuts" to medicare and Social Security, he means to do so through "means-testing" and reform, not by cutting services to the people who need it. Call it a back door tax on the rich if you will... Basically, the rich who don't need medicare and social security don't get access to it, or have to pay more to benefit from it. That makes the program stronger and more sustainable for the people who do still need it. There are also "questionable" applications of medicare money (see the second link about Bachman's "Gay Therapy" treatment getting federal funds).

The alternative of keeping "the status quo" is that the programs go bankrupt. Is that what you would prefer to see?

How do you know that's what he meant (hint: the comment refers to MULTIPLE cuts and not just one)? Can you read his mind? The quote was non-specific and mentioned weeks after Obama brought that up. The merits of specific policies is a red herring for what we're talking about, anyway. The point of that quote is that Obama is giving more than they even wanted in negotiations. Is this what a Democratic president does?

Also the second link seems to subscribe to the MACHIAVELLIAN PUPPETMASTER interpretation of the Obama presidency, which is never not hilariously sad.

It's not "All the Tea Party's fault" but a good chunk of it is. Above all, Obama is a pragmatist. He's got to deal with the congress he has, not the congress he would like. Obama quite often stands up to the Republicans, but he still has to work with them. He can't simply tell them to "go fuck themselves" even if he'd really really like to.

How often does he stand up to Republicans, exactly? Any important examples? Here's one: gay rights! Ok, I'm out of ideas.

Do I have to list the times he didn't? Because I'm pretty sure you know those (there are a lot more of them, too)!

Of course he's going to polish that turd as much as he can and try to pass it off as a diamond in the rough to his base. What else do you expect him to do? The response of the Tea Partiers should tell you what they really think about the bill. It didn't make anyone "happy", but it was something everyone could live with.

That's not true though! The Tea Party isn't the entire GOP. Don't you remember the Republicans who disagreed with the Tea Party or disagreed with Rush Limbaugh? They apologized later, of course, but I doubt they changed their opinions that much. The Tea Party is just really loud and disproportionally influential in the primaries, canvasing, etc. I don't see why you think the Tea Party's opinion is reflection of anyone but the Tea Party's.

[Eulogy]

Obama has lied to his base and his entire country. Next election will be like choosing between a rabid bulldog and a rabid German shepherd, and rabies from both will still doom those unfortunate enough to be unable to get away from them.

He is not only a massive disappointment, he is also a war criminal and a coward, the opposite of what America truly needs. His silver toungue is tarnished by his misdeeds, and despite the GOP's antics I doubt Wonder Chimp Junior is the winning horse to bet on next election.

He has made far more enemies than friends, enemies who will not hestitate to pounce on the US once it has degraded enough; his tortures and boondoggles, as well as his utter failure to remove Bush's taint from office have seen to that.

America is turninng into the world's newest Third World country, and Nero is fiddling.

[Lonestar]

Which one has the powerbase, voter base, and infrastructure to offer a credible chance of getting to the top? As opposed to just, you know, talking about it or having debates with finger puppets(One might guess I don't like Nader. They'd be right.)?

Isn't that thinking cyclical?

People refuse to back third parties because they have no power. They have no power because nobody votes for them.

Yes. Yes it is.

People like Nit and Erik are just admiting in public that they've bought they "if we don't vote for the Dems the REPUBLICANS will take over and Western civilization will collapse" line the Dems have been running on the past 12 years.

"Our system is great! We have twice as many choices as North Korea!"

[blahface]

I am so fucking disgusted with Obama. If it weren't for the supreme court nominees I'd think that it would have been better with McCain in office. Obama makes the dems in congress go along with Republican policies. I think they would be more resistant if McCain were President. I really hope Howard Dean primaries Obama.

Also, this super congress is a really bad ideas. Given that the Republicans will vote in lockstep and there will definitely be blue dog Democrats on it, how is this not just giving the Republicans the keys to the car and telling them to go wild.

[Gandalf]

Has a sitting president ever been unseated by someone in his own party like that?

[Lonestar]

Has a sitting president ever been unseated by someone in his own party like that?

In "recent" years Ford was nearly unseated by Reagan. I think the last successful party coup involved Pierce in the 1850s.