Friday, September 23, 2011

Yellow Dogs

By Jay -- Ottawa

“Yellow Dog Democrat” defined: an unflinching party loyalist who votes for the Democratic ticket even when the party elevates as its candidate a scoundrel, a dead man or, for that matter, a mangy four-legged cur.  The term goes back to the nineteenth century.  The term is applicable today in the twenty-first century.  I speak of Democrats who will not budge, who will not think out of the box, no matter what.
The term is key to help me understand why many an otherwise sensible commenter, in this blog and elsewhere, continues to stick with Obama, despite his consistent betrayal of the best principles that stand for – or used to stand for -- the Democratic Party.  Yellow Dog Democrats are rarely enthusiastic about Obama.  How could they be in light of his abject failures and acknowledged willingness to turn his back on truth itself?   And yet they back him. 
Humanist ideals like compassion, or philosophical principles like the lesser of two evils argument, are usually advanced in defense of the sure thing Yellow Dog vote for Obama in 2012; but I’m not convinced about their being motivated by high principle.  Fear of Republican candidates and justices is often mentioned.  I think it’s just life-long habit, inertia, timidity and, most importantly, a failure to see the equal sign between the labels “Democrat” and “Republican.”  Note how the Yellow Dog Democrats regularly criticize just about everything and everybody affiliated with the Republican Party.  They have sidebars in their blogs mocking Republican gaffes and misdeeds.  They are trying to erase that equal sign.  Republicans bad, Democrats not so bad.  See the difference?  Is the Democratic Party of Obama, Pelosi and Reid much better?  Couldn’t right wingers post entertaining sidebars about Democratic hypocrisy?  Well, maybe the Democrats are a wee bit better.  But statistically significant, as they say?  I don’t think so.  At times the Democratic leadership under Obama has been out in front of the Republicans in pleasing the elites.  If Republicans gave away honorary degrees, Obama would gotten one for each of the past three years he's been in office. 
Since Bill Clinton, the Democratic Party has been in the ring against the Republican Party like a boxer who intends to throw the fight.  Republicans and Democrats take big money from the same corporate and financial giants.  Neither side touches the Pentagon’s bloated budgets for endless, pointless wars.  The Patriot Act, tax breaks for the rich: extended.  The aggressive Republicans and the spineless Democrats have been moving shoulder to shoulder down the same road to the same goal: national collapse.  If principle had motivated Obama and the Democrats since January 2009, the nation and the world would be in much better shape today.  The Democrats got a mandate in 2009, which they didn’t want.  They shadow boxed with the other party.  The Republican party should be on the ropes today.  Instead, the world is on the ropes.  The elites at ringside smile and puff their cigars. 

Yellow Dog Democrats write, but they don’t fight.  Yellow Dog Democrats take the crumbs and lick the hands of those who abuse them.  Where were the Yellow Dog Democrats in 2000 when the election was stolen, votes not counted, the losing candidate appointed to office by five Justices with a decision that didn’t parse?  Yellow Dog Democrats hardly even barked.  They should have been in the streets.  Where are the Yellow Dog Democrats today when the young, the old and the Middle Class are being thrown under the bus?  They bark, but they don’t bite.
Yellow Dog Democrats brag about the accomplishments of FDR and the New Deal.  But the Democratic Party of  FDR is extinct.  It is a light extinguished, fading into myth.  In fact, the Democratic Party of today, lead by Trojan Horse Obama, works diligently to overturn the New Deal, as well as to gut the Great Society programs of President Johnson. 
All three branches of government are bought.  Both major parties are bought.  These once great institutions and once great parties dance to the tune of the elites.  Both parties ignore the will of the people; just ask the pollsters.  And still, Yellow Dog Democrats, the party loyalists no matter what, swear allegiance to the likely party ticket of November 2012.  Shifting support to primary challenges or Third Parties, like the New Progressive Alliance, is labeled naïve, impractical, risky.  The Yellow Dog Democrats are right: Obama will become the Default President in 2012.  The best of the Empire will disappear; the worst of the Empire will endure -- and continue to be funded.
America is trapped in a two-party system subverting democracy.  And Yellow Dog Democrats are helping to seal the trap.

(Ed. note: For more fun and colorful facts about Yellow Dogs, Yellow Dawgs, Rabid Yellow Dawgs, Blue Dogs, check out this site: )


Anonymous said...


When I hear a Democratic crowd cheer death of an uninsured man....I'll consider your argument.

When I hear a Democratic crowd cheer 200 plus executions....I'll consider your argument.

When I hear a Democratic crowd boo a gay solider in Irag....I'll consider your argument.

When I hear a Democrat candidate for President one should have to give one dollar of the money he has earned to the government...I'll consider your argument.

When I hear a Democrat Candidate for President say social security is unconstitutional...I'll consider your argument.

When I hear a Democrat Candidate for President say HPV vaccine causes retardation...I'll consider your argument.

When I hear a Democrat Candidate for President say health care reform has death panels....I'll consider your argument.

When I hear a Democrat Candidate for President say corporations are people....I'll consider your argument.

When I hear a Democrat Candidate for President say taxing millionaires is class warfare...I'll consider your argument.

When I hear a Democrat Candidate for President declare homosexuality is akin to having sex with dogs....I'll consider your argument.

When you get a third party candidate up and running....I'll consider your argument.

I'll not try Karen's patience further. I'm sure you get the point.

The mangy cur, yellow dog, licker of crumbs, apologist, Obamabot, or whatever other appellation you may wish to apply, also known as


miketcha said...

Although republicans have tried to associate themselves with cats - independent individuals who take care of themselves. The reality is that democrats and republicans are pack animals loyal to the pack even when their own self-interests are subjugated. This explains Tea-partists looking to dismantle social programs and progressive democrats accepting right of center policies of the democratic party as the best we can do. The abused dog stays with the abusive owner fearful of the unknown and locked into a narrow reality of life, I think that sums up our electorate

Kat said...

This encapsulates my feelings pretty well:

But you know, ultimately it is not about what they say. It is about what they do.

Anne Lavoie said...

I agree with Kat. The problem is not in the words. The problem is in DEEDS.

The biggest difference I see between Republicans and Democrats is that Republicans say what they will do and do what they say. You can count on it. The Democrats, on the other hand, will use all the right words but do whatever their financial backers want. We can't count on them for anything anymore, but Big Money can.

There used to be something called a Democratic Party platform. I don't know when they did away with it, but it's been a long time since I have seen any evidence of it or heard any reference to it, especially in terms of Obama's actions or inaction. The Republicans, on the other hand, do have a Republican platform and set of principles, and they are willing to fight to achieve them. They are organized and disciplined in their message because they have one.

And Jay, I don't think Yellow Dogs even bark. They just whine and whimper, like they desperately need some obedience training to learn how to stand in their own space. Unfortunately, they seem stuck in the puppy stage. Maybe time and a good example will help. We can only hope.

dean said...

Jay accurately describes the disappointment and shock we have in this president and democrats. Job-killing spending cuts, relaxing ozone standards, a grand bargain to further kill jobs at the expense of social security and medicare, too timid stimulus, and too late (and way too little) jobs act. Where was the Democratic outrage on the debt ceiling drama and Republican attacks on workers, the middle class, and poor?
If the last 2&1/2 years demonstrate anything it is that the power over the economy rests in congress. I cannot support this president and my only hope lies in congressional races if progressives will come out of the woodwork to oppose tea partiers like my representative, republicans, blue, yellow dog, whatever democrats.
The president and democrats did blow it in 2009 by not acting fast enough. As soon as they lost the supermajority, the Republicans could, and did, block anything they want invoking the idiotic, anti-democratic cloture rule. Without that rule we would have: rescinded Bush tax cuts, a public option for Obamacare, Warren as an appointee not candidate, Diamond on the Fed, the list goes on. Who knows, maybe Obama would even have capitalized on the big Mo to push a jobs bill and helped 2008 and… Didn’t happen.
In the end I am with Ned. And add anti-science to the list of Republican candidate attributes.
While I can think outside the box how do I vote outside the box?
Jay if Ottawa is Ontario, not Kansas, you might prepare for 2012 as Andy posted 9/22.

William said...

"Fear of Republican often mentioned."

Remind you of anyone, @Ned?

Thanks for the link. Bruce Dixon's column is the perfect companion to @Jay's post (which is persuasive in its own right). I also highly recommend the comment below the piece from Brutal Truth entitled "I VOTE FOR THE LATTER."

Ciara said...

Okay, so we all stay home on the next election day. Or we vote for some third-party candidate. The Republican candidate wins, obviously. We all know that will happen, right? Does anyone think that, assuming progressives stay home, something other than that will happen?

So now we have President Romney or President Perry. Oh, what fun. Yes, Obama is lousy. But just wait till you see how much fun President Romney is going to be. Just wait till you see how he or Perry pack the Supreme Court with more Scalias. You're gonna love that, I'm sure. And when you see how he puts incompetents in charge once again of FEMA and of the DOJ -- oh, how we shall rejoice.

I suppose it's something like pleading guilty to that you can be in a minimum security prison, or going to trial so that you end up in a maximum security prison. If you've ever visited someone in prison, you'll know that the difference is enormous. Don't kid yourselves that one is just as bad as the other.

Ciara said...

Bravo, Ned. A truly insightful post.

Back when there was still an Iron Curtain, I visited both Czechoslovakia and Poland. Some people there used to take risks of different kinds on the theory that "It can't get any worse." But you know what -- it often did. Allowing the Republicans to re-take the White House will make everything lots, lots worse. Why would sane, intelligent people make that happen?

Anonymous said...


There are damn few in the political arena that I admire, but I have two and I'm pretty confident they are going to vote for Obama: Elizabeth Warren and Russ Feingold. This old yellow dog is delighted to be in their company.


Ciara said...

Jay, just what do you propose we do? Stay home and let President Romney / Perry take the reins, ably assisted by John Boehner and Mitch McConnell?

I'd really appreciate a reply. If you can reply without calling us names, that would be appreciated too.

Anne Lavoie said...


This proud Radical-Leftist-Socialist-Commie-Pinko-TeaParty-So-Far-Left-She's-Right-Independent says the alternative is not to vote for a Republican, it is to simply put up a REAL Democrat on the Democratic ticket.

It should be clear by now that Obama is going down to defeat and will take the entire Democratic Party down with him on his sinking Titanic. But hey, that's what Trojan Horses do! We've been warned all along, with every betrayal.

Democrats are sticking with him as their only hope. However, false hopes only serve to blind one to reality. Remember 2008? We were all blinded, only now some of us have seen the light. We've had 3 years to adapt to the brightness.

We'd love to have an option of a REAL Democrat. So you see, we are not so far apart in what we want, just in what we are willing to SETTLE FOR. It is 14 months before an election when there is still time to do something to avert a wholesale Democratic disaster in 2012. Obama has no coattails. He doesn't even have any clothes. As least not any Democratic ones. I think his closet is full of tuxedos though.

I have said in a previous post that Hillary Clinton has what it takes to fight for old-fashioned Democratic principles, has the resources, the fight, the intelligence, and the connections. I would support her in a heartbeat, despite not agreeing with her on all issues, but I will not support Obama again.

So Democrats are the really the ones determining which way I vote. Give me a real choice at election time, not just either of two Republicans. That won't get very many people at all to the polls.

The Republicans know how to motivate voters. They may be mean, but they are smart. They are spreading the word that Obama is going to take away their guns. That is an old get-out-the-vote strategy. We can all predict what a healthy turnout that will produce.

What strategy do Democrats have? Simple and obvious and true - the war against the poor and Middle Class waged by the Oligarchs, but Obama won't embrace or even take advantage of that message, even when the Republicans hand it to him on a platter, because he has aligned himself with them. He will need those connections for his future ex-Presidential ventures and the grand edifice of his Presidential Llibrary. Oh, he does a little whimpering, but whimpering is not barking. The People have no leader!

What I would like to see happen is for Democrats to express their unwillingness to support 'Obama At Any Price' and get on board to demand he not run. He's neither entitled nor deserving of it, certainly not as a Democratic candidate. I would simply like to see some pressure applied. I interpret no pressure to mean there are no objections to the job he's done and what he stands for (?).

Hillary cannot run against a sitting Black President without major self-defeating fallout. Ask Bill. She might not be perfect, but she is a whole lot better than Obama. I can't think of anything he is better at - her smile is just as good, plus it looks genuine!

James F Traynor said...

No, you don't stay home. Vote 3rd party or write in a candidate. My choice is Bernie Sanders. Will a Republican get in? Probably. Will it be worse than Obama? Yes. But this frog is jumping out of the water. Better to die fighting than to go out with a whimper. And the only, only way to reform the Democratic party.

Jay - Ottawa said...


You’re hearing up the wrong tree.

In politics, what one hears is misleading, often deceptive, useless. Pertinent Example: think back to the promises we heard from Obama in campaign mode. What we heard were lies.

We recently learned what Obama thinks about people who feel obliged to tell the truth: they have “a problem.” Today, we know better than to listen to him because:
1. he thinks politics frees him from being honest, and
2. his record of the past three years outs the lies of 2008.

What you see, not what you hear, is what counts. Open your eyes Curiously, the breed of Yellow Dog Democrats is incapable of detecting the stench of corruption under their noses. This incapacity reinforces their servile attachment to the party, no matter how corrupt and abusive its leadership.

Take note of the defensive barking that issues forth from the faithful Yellow Dog Democrats between now and November 2012. Should convince you in no time that Yellow Dog Democrats of today are true to breed.

Anonymous said...


Will you drop the political tract writing for a moment? Did you see the debate? What did you think?

Someone is going to be president come 2013. The office will be occupied. It will either be Obama or one of those nine. Give me your best case for who you want to fill that office. No cop-outs. No mangy dogs, no licking of crumbs, no stench of corruption.


Anonymous said...

As someone who would typically be labelled some color-canine type of traditional Democrat, I will only cast a vote for Obama if the GOP runs Perry.

@Ned and @Ciara:
Can you tell me the substantive (substantive, please) policy differences between Romney and Obama?
Are you unable to distinguish between moderate GOP'ers (as Obama and Romney BOTH are) and far-right whack jobs like Perry?
Let's see WHO each party runs before we make our 2012 decision.
from the pup-tent

Jay - Ottawa said...


“Yellow Dog Democrat” is not schoolyard name-calling. Its evocation is an attempt to provide historical context about a dead-in-the-water, getting-us-nowhere stasis afflicting an important segment of the electorate. It’s an attempt to head off a dismal, either-or, self-fulfilling prophecy of defeat. The crux of my argument is that under its current management, the Democratic Party equals the Republican Party on all essentials of the social contract and sometimes exceeds the folly of the Republican extremism we both deplore.

Consider Obama's record, not in our current debate mode, but as coolly as an accountant. Bush's wars, economics, corporatism, lies, dirty money, governmental surveillance, secrecy, assassination diplomacy and suspension of civil rights at home match and, with increasing frequency, exceed that of the Bush years. The nation is far worse off now than it was in 2008. We can't blame Bush and his neocons forever. When will we decide to hold Obama and his backers to account in all the categories just enumerated?

What is to be done?

Step One: The first thing to do in light of the past three years is to stop acting like Yellow Dog Democrats. Stop drinking the Kool-Aid. Don’t collaborate with evil. Break the cycle of self-imposed inevitability and defeatism. By sticking with Obama, Yellow Dog Democrats are working against their own self-interest no less than Tea Party types who are being manipulated by rogue elites and the selfish superrich. Once again, ask yourself, who is manipulating this Democratic Administration? And the Congress?

If enough of us stopped being blindly loyal to party and pointed our noses in a different direction, we would find the majorities we need to put a real representative government back in office. There's a lot of talent among the Yellow Dog Democrats. We need their energy. What a pity to waste their talent and energy on default incumbents like Obama.

I feel bad that you still count yourself among Yellow Dog Democrats. I feel like the author of “Waldon” in jail after he refused to pay the war tax. You ask me what I’m doing over here; but I must ask you what you’re doing out there, among Yellow Dog Democrats.

Step Two: Give whatever money and time you can to the New Progressive Alliance, or Elizabeth Warren, or other honest candidates dying on the vine for lack of our support. The only way we can stop the cynicism is stop acting defeatist and cynical ourselves.

Step Three: If you can’t fight for your own self-interest, consider fighting for the millions of your fellow Americans who are homeless, jobless, broke and broken because of Obama’s policies. Sympathy and solidarity are not base qualities to be mocked as maudlin and co-dependent reinforcement of the failures of lesser people.

Step Four: Meditate. Identify with millions of unlucky Americans for fifteen minutes a day every day. Imagine yourself as homeless, jobless, broke and broken with no real options before you. Then do what you will with the rest of your day.

Jay - Ottawa said...

@ Ned
What I fear most is not the quality of the debate in the Republican camp. What worries me is the lack of any debate for the highest office in the Democratic camp.

Anonymous said...


I am 55 and have been unemployed for a year. Should I be afraid?

I am a single mom with three kids and work at a minimum wage job. Should I be afraid?

I am uninsured and have diabetis. Should I be afraid?

I am a Muslim. Should I be afraid?

I am 14 and my dad rapes me. I don't want to have a baby. Should I be afraid?

I'm homeless. Should I be scared?

I have three kids in high school and they all want to go to college. I make $35,000/yr. Should I be afraid?

I work for the post office. Should I be afraid?

I'm a teacher. Should I be afraid?

I work in the public sector and like my union. Should I be afraid?

I've lost my job and I'm going to lose my house. Should I be afraid?

I'm a widow, 75, and barely getting by. Should I be afraid?

I'm 7 years old and I get to eat at school but I don't always get to eat dinner. Should I be afraid?

My parents are illegal. I'm 12 years old and was born here. Should I be afraid?

I'm Ned. And all the above scare the shit out of me.

James F Traynor said...

If Obama gets in the pot will continue to simmer and the frogs are done; the Democratic Party will continue down the route established by the Clintons and the DLC. Unless, of course, there is a demonstrable desertion by progressives, causing the party to change direction. Clearly, if this is the case, it is an argument for defection on the part of progressives.

If Perry or Romney get in, and it is clearly the result of defection by progressive voters, the Democratic Party will be forced to change course or wither on the vine, allowing the possible beginning of a viable third party. Again this is an argument for defection on the part of progressives, though at the price of a Republican presidency. An admittedly high price, but, I think, worth it. The Republicans aren't the problem.

Anonymous said...

Wait, @Ned, did your most recent post answer the question: "what is the substantive policy difference between Romney and Obama?"
Or: "are you unable to distinguish between RomneyBama (moderate GOP) and Perry (right wing nutter)?

Anne Lavoie said...

The People's time has come. Any candidate that seems genuinely 'of the people' will be the one to win. That would not be Romney, Gingrich, Huntsman, or Dr. Paul. It might be Bachmann. It could definitely be Perry.

It would not be Obama, but it could be Billary.

That's why Chris Christie is getting a second look. He looks and acts like real people!!! He definitely could win.

Issues are secondary - the People's candidate will win. That's not to say the People will be served by anyone elected. Same old, same old in this broken system I'm afraid.

I think James Traynor is right about the high price, but ultimate benefit, of forcing the Democratic Party to Do or Die.

Anonymous said...

I'm happy to make up a list. The above was not it. Still googling.... back later.

Is your observation about the quality or lack of debates your response to who (an actual, living person who can probably capture at least 30% of the votes - not a label) should sit in the Oval office in 2013? Is it accurate to assume you thought the debate of no concern - that if any of those candidates assume the presidency it is of no concern to you?


Valerie said...

@Ned and @Ciara - I don't think I have ever heard either of you criticise Obama and I find that very telling. All you peddle is fear of "the other." If you step back and look at it logically, you are not that different from the fear-mongering Republicans you say you despise. All they are peddling is fear too - fear of socialism, fear of Mexican immigrants, fear of Muslims. Ask any good psychologist, fear is a terrible reason for doing anything. It elicits a visceral reaction - not a thoughtful or intellectual one and often leads to regret once the fog of fear clears. When you have something to offer other than fear of “the other,” I will consider YOUR argument.

What we saw at the Republican debate was a dog and pony circus with a mob mentality in the audience. If we had a decent candidate ourselves, that circus of clowns would only hurt the Republicans. You underestimate the reasonable Republicans - and I can assure you they exist in far bigger numbers than you think they do. (I would wager they are 30% - 40% of the Republican Party at the very least.) Like us, they want an alternative to their own horrible politicians. If the Democrats could offer up something better than Obama, they would be flocking to our side in droves. The problem is, all we offer is Obama.

Unlike the anti-Republican rhetoric suggests, reasonable conservatives understand that we need to pay taxes to support our system of government and that we need good regulation and a half way decent social safety net. They get that we have a public highway system that needs to be maintained though our tax dollars. What they resent are the things like the bank bailouts and the fact that the bankers have walked away not only unpunished but profiting. They don’t see either side as NOT being in the pocket of the huge corporations and banks – and they figure (incorrectly of course) they won’t be throwing good money after bad. What they hate is that their tax dollars are being wasted and given away to Washington insiders – crony capitalists – and I can’t say I blame them. But until the Democrats offer them a viable alternative, they are going to stick with what they see as the lesser of two evils.

As Anne said, the Democratic Party has 14 months to come up with a better candidate and define themselves as the party of the Middle Class and they are going to need to ditch Obama (a proven crony of the capitalists) to do this. I suggest all Yellow Dogs start putting pressure on their own party to come up with a candidate who will stick up for the Middle Class instead of trying to scare those of us who have the courage to stand up and fight for integrity in our politicians.

Pink Dog Signing Off

Anonymous said...

@William re: difference between R&O as I see it. It's opinion since Romney has not actually been president. I don't know if you have watched the debates...but there is no moderate candidate. Just ask a few Republicans.

No Soto or Kagen to SCOTUS,
No Dodd-Frank
No Consumer Protection Bureau (which led to the opportunity of a Warren senate run)
No Federal Healthcare Reform
No CreditCard Reform
No Saving of GM and Chrysler and their associated jobs
No Stimulus Bill
No removal of stem cell restrictions
No expanded Schip
No new Cuba travel policy
No Cairo speech
No Swiss bank records
No Student Loan Reform
No Berwick to head Medicare
No DADT repeal
Ended previous practice of forbidding Medicare from negotiating w/drug manfacturers
DOJ would still be enforcing DOMA

Romney would:
Eliminate taxes on div, interest and cap gains
Overturn Roe v Wade
Planned Parenthood eliminated
No embryo "farming" (forgive the term, it's a quote)
Eliminate "death" tax
Eliminate taxes on profits earned by American companies in foreign countries.
Healthcare repealed
Medicare "similar to Ryan Plan - share objectives"
Suspect Dept of Ed would go.
Suspect more drilling and digging for energy
Suspect lots of regs rolled back.
He's going to need to keep the base happy or he'll face the same problems Obama is having with his base. And, unlike Progressives, there will be no shortage of primary challenges come 2016.

Have at me....


Anonymous said...


I have to admit that I'm surprised that someone with such an entrenched position needs to "google" a list of differences between Romney and Obama. I find that telling.

RomneyBama are remarkably similar in their economic outlook.

Both Obama and Romney are obsessed with deficits and austerity.

Both Romney and Obama supported the extension of the Bush tax cuts. (Which is insane, given that both claim to be concerned with the deficits.)

That's to say: both Romney and Obama wish to enforce austerity on the poor and the middle class, while forcing the middle class (and not the top 2%) to pay for the wars, bailouts, and accompanying deficits.

Obama's health care plan (which should be repealed, given that it insists on a mandate with NO public option, essentially forcing the middle class to hand over MORE money to private health care insurers) was modeled on the Romney plan for Massachusetts.

Both Romney and Obama are VERY friendly with the banks, and well financed by banking interests.

Both Romney and Obama supported the bank bailouts; what is more significant is that NEITHER demanded that said bailouts should be accompanied by stricter oversight AND investigations AND indictments.

I could go on, without having to google.

That said, I will NOT be voting for Romney, since I find neither Romney nor Obama acceptable. I find neither acceptable because: They share the same policies and outlook.

To this traditional Democrat, Obama is NOT a Democrat, save for the (D) after his name.

Perry is another story. He's far to the right of RomneyBama. With the single exception being his support for financial assistance for higher education for children of illegal immigrants. Which is, weirdly, somewhat to the left of Obama's position.

Perry. To the left of Obama on even a single issue? Strange times, these.

Camp Obama, Homeless Edition
P.S. I wholly endorse the need for a primary challenger.

Jay - Ottawa said...

@ Ned
Please read what Kat and William recommended above:

@ Everybody
Please read what Kat and William recommended above:

Ciara said...

@James F. Traynor

I appreciate your reply. It actually offers an alternative. It has the additional merits of (a) not being condescending; and (b) refraining from self-congratulation. Would that there were more posts like yours!

Anonymous said...

I have been disgusted a deeply disappointed in O. Is a longer litany needed? But my comments would simply be redundant, adding nothing - not even the pleasure of a clever turn of phrase that is found here. I've thought about my sudden "output" and why I engage. Is it because I'm tired of the relentless hammering Obama takes? Is it because I'm terrified for my children and grandchildren and where this country is going? Is it because I want to shake you and say THERE IS NO THIRD PARTY CANDIDATE? (Pardon the caps, they are obnoxious) Is it because I grew tired of oligarch, plutocrat, Obamabot, TLOTE repeated endlessly? Is it because I listened to Perry's response to Pakistan/Taliban/nuclear weapons question? Is it because those idiots would be glad to attack Iran, maybe Syria, and think Israel should determine our foreign policy? Bibi and the Rapture Christians are terrifying! You're damned right I'm scared! People walking around in teabags and saying the earth is 6000 yrs old, scientists are liars, cheering executions and we don't need no taxes - ever!

I love this blog. I "know" you and you're damned interesting. I'm not out to "convert" anyone. I try to offer some defense and I hope it is in terms of "I think" and not maintaining what "you think". I hope I sometimes ask a question before I assume who you are, what you are, and why you think that. I've learned stuff here. I like that. I hope that is more "telling".


Anonymous said...

Dear Ned,

I just read your response to my questions, which you mistakenly addressed to William.

I'd like to counter your listed reasons of what separates Romney and Obama, because you didn't actually differentiate in any specificity how they differ.

Nor is it clear to me that you've examined in any measure Romney's record in Massachusetts.

And you appear to have avoided entirely the question of what separates Romney from Perry. That's a serious question, and an important one.

What you did instead was offer a laundry list of the O admin's activities to date, not all of which are beneficial. You then claimed that Romney would do a host of things without any citation.

Let's start with your O list: I've written before that I'm happy with his SC appointments. So I won't quibble on that.

But Dodd-frank has loopholes you could drive a mack truck through, so forget about that as a defense.

CPB has been little more than window dressing, and it is absurd to claim that O's distaste and lack of support for Warren "led to the opportunity of a Warren Senate run."

You cite Federal Healthcare Reform, which most of us think should be repealed for the reasons I listed previously. Further, it's absurd to claim that the ACA, modeled on Romney's plan, would have been significantly different from a Romney offering. In terms of the ACA, no reform would have been preferable.

I don't think that you can claim that Romney would NOT have given you credit card reform.

As for the rest of your claims, it's clear to me that you haven't looked at how Romney actually governed Massachusetts. Which is essentially in line with how Obama has led the country. Both are unacceptably to the right in the eyes of traditional Democrats (read: progressives), and not a few Republicans.

@Ciara: Wanted to give you an opportunity to answer the questions I posed to you earlier.

Camp Obama, H.E.

Anonymous said...

@William. You asked for differences. Their focus on austerity are similar so I did not list them. I think their position on revenues will diverge. I'm old and forgetful so I have to google.

@Jay. I tired that link earlier and it did not work. I will try again. I've read your "resource" paper and was very impressed. You are one very smart guy. I've asked a couple of easy questions. What gives?


Ciara said...

I think that Karl Rove would be so pleased, and so very encouraged, by this page of comments. As he watches one group of Democrats wage all-out verbal war against another group of Democrats, surely he would end up grinning from ear to ear.

Anonymous said...

Either that, or Rove is happy enough to see so many like yourself and Ned defend a Republican in Democrat's clothing such as Obama. I understand your point, but I do have questions.
Regardless of Rove, are either of the questions I asked something you're willing to answer?
Camp Obama, H.E.

Fred Drumlevitch said...

Questions relevant to any bad situation --- not just a bad political one --- should examine past, present, and future. They include:

1) what exactly is our situation?

2) how did we get here?

3) what are our options, and what are the consequences of each option?

The general answer to question 1 is that in 2011, we're in one fine mess, somewhere we should never have been with a Democratic President and a Democratic Congress given a popular mandate in 2008 to fix the problem largely (though by no means exclusively) caused by Republicans and insufficiently-regulated capitalism.

With regard to question 2, many progressives and other Democrats have been arguing too much about how we got where we are. To this day, too many apologists for Obama contend that our present state was unavoidable, that the Republicans had effective veto power in the Senate, that Democrats were too diverse to support transformative legislation... Yada, yada, yada. I strongly disagree.

Not all the evidence is in, but all that we need to narrow it to two possibilities is, and it ain't pretty. Obama either a) rates as the most incompetent intelligent politician in nearly a century, or b) has no real commitment to traditional Democratic positions --- despite the impressions he deliberately cultivated during his 2008 presidential campaign.

Possibility "b" quite understandably makes many people feel as though they've been lied to --- which effectively, they have --- and, news flash, no one likes being lied to. Not Mother Theresa, not Al Capone, not anyone anywhere on the spectrum of human archetypes. That accounts for a great deal of the backlash against Obama from Democrats. Possibility "a" engenders less disgust, but leads to a cold rational conclusion that he doesn't deserve re-election. Any way you slice it (including that both possibilities are applicable), I want a new Democratic candidate for 2012.

One option, question 3, could be met by progressives rolling over and allowing the premier and politbureau (I mean, president and cabinet) to continue on their present disastrous course, rationalized as the lesser of two evils.

I'd rather that we acted as though we valued democracy and our role in it, and took our chances with a full frontal progressive primary challenge, which I believe would garner vast support. As has been argued, even a failure to win the Democratic nomination has the potential to reinvigorate debate about what the Democratic Party (and this nation) once stood for --- and should again.

As things stand currently, decency in this nation is being dismantled, and even the debate is improperly framed. See the NYT Op-Ed:

Valerie said...

@Fred! I always love it when you join the conversation. Well said! You speak very eloquently for so many of us!


I maintain the answer is getting another candidate and you maintain the answer is sticking with Obama. I don't think we are going to find much common ground on this one.

You know, I wouldn't mind you talking about your fear of “the other” once the Republicans have announced their candidate. I tend to think that there are enough sensible Republicans out there who are as equally horrified by the dog and pony circus. Maybe the Republican candidate will be Romney, who like @Anonymous says, is quite like Obama. (And Ned, you can’t keep calling @Anonymous, William!) In any case, I can't help but think you have overplayed your hand. I might have considered the “fear of the nutcase other” in October 2012 as a last resort, but to be using it daily now is only desensitizing the rest of us to you argument.

Furthermore, I wouldn’t have such a hard time understanding your pragmatism in voting for Obama as the Lesser of Two Evils in October 2012 if you weren't advertising it so loudly now and undermining our efforts to hold Obama’s feet to the fire.

You know, we radicals didn’t start from this place of opting not to vote for Obama. I wrote and called the White House weekly in the first year – very politely I might add – saying I was an Obama supporter and these were my concerns and issues of importance to me. I watched bill after bill in Congress trying to pass some needed regulation over the banks get ZERO support from Obama and I watched him time after time do the opposite of what his base asked him to do. After about a year of giving him the benefit of the doubt, I realised that Obama wasn’t going to listen to his base out of loyalty or out of a sense of integrity - so I resorted to telling him – a little more emphatically – that I would withhold my vote unless he started acting like a real Democrat. And I meant it, if Obama had just thrown us a few bones at that point, many of us would have stuck with Obama. But when Obama started openly dismissing/despising his “sanctimonious purist” base for asking/demanding he actually do what he was elected to do and get out of bed with the corporations wrecking our country, I knew it would do no good to try to negotiate with this man. Obama has driven us to this point, and we are only fighting with the small weapon at our disposal for what ALL Middle Class Democrats (including you) say they want. All you are doing by committing your loyalty to Obama so publicly so early in the race is discouraging a really good Democrat from challenging Obama and ultimately MAKING SURE that our choices are Sell-Out Obama and a Republican nutcase you so fear.

Why are you so opposed to even entertaining the idea of a challenger in the Primary? You admit yourself that you are disgusted and deeply disappointed with Obama. I gotta wonder if you just plain support the guy because you think he is doing a fine job.

And just so you know, I would be using italicised lettering instead of capitals if that were an option.

Ciara said...


For what it's worth, I agree with you on pretty much everything. In 'real' life, I've been saying pretty much what you said in your points 1 and 2 for quite a while.

As to Point 3, I am eager for an alternative. I can only hope that one will materialize.

Thank you for your contribution.

Ciara said...

I never quite understand why people's personal records and preferences should come under attack in the way that they do here. Why should anyone care, at the end of the day, how I might or might not vote 14 months from now? Shouldn't we be talking principles, rather than personalities?

Nevertheless, since it seems so important to some, and since false positions have been attributed to me with some degree of vehemence, I will say this:

I don't believe I've defended Barack Obama since sometime during his first year in office. He chose Rik Warren to speak at his inauguration and, from my point of view, it's been pretty much downhill all the way ever since. Sorry to disappoint.